- Usability testing
Run remote usability tests on any digital product to deep dive into your key user flows
- Product analytics
Learn how users are behaving on your website in real time and uncover points of frustration
- Research repository
A tool for collaborative analysis of qualitative data and for building your research repository and database.
- Trymata Blog
How-to articles, expert tips, and the latest news in user testing & user experience
- Knowledge Hub
Detailed explainers of Trymata’s features & plans, and UX research terms & topics
- Plans & Pricing
![](http://ustaliy.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Get paid to test
- User Experience (UX) testing
- User Interface (UI) testing
- Ecommerce testing
- Remote usability testing
- Plans & Pricing
- Customer Stories
How do you want to use Trymata?
Conduct user testing, desktop usability video.
You’re on a business trip in Oakland, CA. You've been working late in downtown and now you're looking for a place nearby to grab a late dinner. You decided to check Zomato to try and find somewhere to eat. (Don't begin searching yet).
- Look around on the home page. Does anything seem interesting to you?
- How would you go about finding a place to eat near you in Downtown Oakland? You want something kind of quick, open late, not too expensive, and with a good rating.
- What do the reviews say about the restaurant you've chosen?
- What was the most important factor for you in choosing this spot?
- You're currently close to the 19th St Bart station, and it's 9PM. How would you get to this restaurant? Do you think you'll be able to make it before closing time?
- Your friend recommended you to check out a place called Belly while you're in Oakland. Try to find where it is, when it's open, and what kind of food options they have.
- Now go to any restaurant's page and try to leave a review (don't actually submit it).
What was the worst thing about your experience?
It was hard to find the bart station. The collections not being able to be sorted was a bit of a bummer
What other aspects of the experience could be improved?
Feedback from the owners would be nice
What did you like about the website?
The flow was good, lots of bright photos
What other comments do you have for the owner of the website?
I like that you can sort by what you are looking for and i like the idea of collections
You're going on a vacation to Italy next month, and you want to learn some basic Italian for getting around while there. You decided to try Duolingo.
- Please begin by downloading the app to your device.
- Choose Italian and get started with the first lesson (stop once you reach the first question).
- Now go all the way through the rest of the first lesson, describing your thoughts as you go.
- Get your profile set up, then view your account page. What information and options are there? Do you feel that these are useful? Why or why not?
- After a week in Italy, you're going to spend a few days in Austria. How would you take German lessons on Duolingo?
- What other languages does the app offer? Do any of them interest you?
I felt like there could have been a little more of an instructional component to the lesson.
It would be cool if there were some feature that could allow two learners studying the same language to take lessons together. I imagine that their screens would be synced and they could go through lessons together and chat along the way.
Overall, the app was very intuitive to use and visually appealing. I also liked the option to connect with others.
Overall, the app seemed very helpful and easy to use. I feel like it makes learning a new language fun and almost like a game. It would be nice, however, if it contained more of an instructional portion.
All accounts, tests, and data have been migrated to our new & improved system!
Use the same email and password to log in:
Legacy login: Our legacy system is still available in view-only mode, login here >
What’s the new system about? Read more about our transition & what it-->
What is Qualitative Research Design? Definition, Types, Examples and Best Practices
What is Qualitative Research Design?
Qualitative research design is defined as a systematic and flexible approach to conducting research that focuses on understanding and interpreting the complexity of human phenomena.
Unlike quantitative research, which seeks to measure and quantify variables, qualitative research is concerned with exploring the underlying meanings, patterns, and perspectives that shape individuals’ experiences and behaviors. This type of research design is particularly useful when studying social and cultural phenomena, as it allows researchers to delve deeply into the context and nuances of a particular subject.
In qualitative research, data is often collected through methods such as interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and document analysis. These methods aim to gather rich, detailed information that can provide insights into the subjective experiences of individuals or groups.
Researchers employing qualitative design are often interested in exploring social processes, cultural norms, and the lived experiences of participants. The emphasis is on understanding the depth and context of the phenomena under investigation, rather than generating statistical generalizations.
One key characteristic of qualitative research design is its iterative nature. The research process is dynamic and may evolve as new insights emerge. Researchers continually engage with the data, refining their questions and methods based on ongoing analysis.
This flexibility allows for a more organic and responsive exploration of the research topic, making it well-suited for complex and multifaceted inquiries.
Qualitative research design also involves careful consideration of ethical concerns, as researchers often work closely with participants to gather personal and sensitive information.
Establishing trust, maintaining confidentiality, and ensuring participants’ autonomy are critical aspects of ethical practice in qualitative research. In summary, qualitative research design is a holistic and interpretive approach that prioritizes understanding the intricacies of human experience, offering depth and context to our comprehension of social and cultural phenomena.
Key Characteristics of Qualitative Research Design
Qualitative research design is characterized by several key features that distinguish it from quantitative approaches. Here are some of the essential characteristics:
- Open-ended Nature: Qualitative research is open-ended and flexible, allowing for the exploration of complex social phenomena without preconceived hypotheses. Researchers often start with broad questions and adapt their focus based on emerging insights.
- Rich Descriptions: Qualitative research emphasizes rich and detailed descriptions of the subject under investigation. This depth helps capture the context, nuances, and subtleties of human experiences, behaviors, and social phenomena.
- Subjective Understanding: Qualitative researchers acknowledge the role of the researcher in shaping the study. The subjective interpretations and perspectives of both researchers and participants are considered valuable for understanding the phenomena being studied.
- Interpretive Approach: Rather than seeking universal laws or generalizations, qualitative research aims to interpret and make sense of the meanings and patterns inherent in the data. Interpretation is often context-dependent and involves understanding the social and cultural context in which the study takes place.
- Non-probability Sampling: Qualitative studies typically use non-probability sampling methods, such as purposeful or snowball sampling, to select participants deliberately chosen for their relevance to the research question. Sample sizes are often small but information-rich, allowing for a deep understanding of the selected cases.
- Inductive Reasoning: Qualitative data analysis is often inductive, meaning that it involves identifying patterns, themes, and categories that emerge from the data itself. Researchers let the data shape the analysis, rather than fitting it into preconceived categories.
- Coding and Categorization: Researchers use coding techniques to systematically organize and categorize data. This involves assigning labels or codes to segments of data based on recurring themes or patterns.
- Flexible Design: Qualitative research design is adaptable and allows for changes in research questions, methods, and strategies as the study progresses. This flexibility accommodates the evolving nature of the research process.
- Iterative Nature: Researchers engage in an iterative process of data collection, analysis, and refinement. As new insights emerge, researchers may revisit previous stages of the research, leading to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the subject.
By embracing these key characteristics, qualitative research design offers a holistic and contextualized approach to studying the complexities of human behavior, culture, and social phenomena.
Key Components of Qualitative Research Design
Qualitative research design involves several key components that shape the overall framework and methodology of the study. These components help guide researchers in conducting in-depth investigations into the complexities of human experiences, behaviors, and social phenomena. Here are the key components of qualitative research design:
- Central Inquiry: Qualitative research begins with a well-defined central research question or objective. This question guides the entire study and determines the focus of data collection and analysis. The question is often broad and open-ended to allow for exploration and discovery.
- Rationale: Researchers provide a clear rationale for why the study is being conducted, outlining its significance and relevance. This may involve identifying gaps in existing literature, addressing practical problems, or contributing to theoretical debates.
- Theoretical Framework: Qualitative studies often draw on existing theories or conceptual frameworks to guide their inquiry. The theoretical lens helps shape the research design and provides a basis for interpreting findings.
- Study Design: Researchers decide on the overall approach to the study, whether it’s a case study, ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, or another qualitative design. The choice depends on the research question and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation.
- Sampling Strategy: Qualitative research employs purposeful or theoretical sampling to select participants who can provide rich and relevant information related to the research question. Sampling decisions are made to ensure diversity and depth in the data.
- Interviews: In-depth interviews are a common method in qualitative research. These interviews are typically semi-structured, allowing for flexibility while ensuring key topics are covered.
- Observation: Researchers may engage in direct observation of participants in natural settings. This can involve participant observation, where the researcher becomes part of the environment, or non-participant observation, where the researcher remains separate.
- Document Analysis: Researchers analyze existing documents, artifacts, or texts relevant to the study, such as diaries, letters, organizational records, or media content.
- Thematic Analysis: Researchers identify and analyze recurring themes or patterns in the data. This involves coding and categorizing data to uncover underlying meanings and concepts.
- Constant Comparative Analysis: Common in grounded theory, this method involves comparing data as it is collected, allowing researchers to refine categories and theories iteratively.
- Narrative Analysis: Focuses on the stories people tell, examining the structure and content of narratives to understand the meaning-making process.
- Informed Consent: Researchers obtain informed consent from participants, explaining the purpose of the study, potential risks, and ensuring participants have the right to withdraw at any time.
- Confidentiality and Anonymity: Researchers take measures to protect the privacy of participants by ensuring that their identities and personal information are kept confidential or anonymized.
- Credibility: Establishing credibility involves demonstrating that the study accurately represents participants’ perspectives. Techniques such as member checking, peer debriefing, and prolonged engagement contribute to credibility.
- Transferability: Researchers aim to make the study findings applicable to similar contexts. Detailed descriptions and thick descriptions enhance the transferability of qualitative research.
- Dependability and Confirmability: Ensuring dependability involves maintaining consistency in data collection and analysis, while confirmability ensures that findings are rooted in the data rather than researcher bias.
- Reflexivity: Researchers acknowledge their role in shaping the study and consider how their background, experiences, and biases may influence the research process and interpretation of findings. Reflexivity enhances transparency and the researcher’s self-awareness.
By carefully considering and integrating these key components, qualitative researchers can design studies that yield rich, contextually grounded insights into the social phenomena they aim to explore.
Types of Qualitative Research Design
Qualitative research design encompasses various approaches, each suited to different research questions and objectives. Here are some common types of qualitative research designs:
- Focus: Ethnography involves immersing the researcher in the natural environment of the participants to observe and understand their behaviors, practices, and cultural context.
- Data Collection: Researchers often use participant observation, interviews, and document analysis to gather data.
- Example: An anthropologist immersed in a remote tribe might live with the community for an extended period, participating in their daily activities, conducting interviews, and documenting observations. By doing so, the researcher gains a deep understanding of the tribe’s cultural practices, social relationships, and the significance of rituals in their way of life.
- Focus: Phenomenology explores the lived experiences of individuals to uncover the essence of a phenomenon.
- Data Collection: In-depth interviews and sometimes participant observation are common methods.
- Purpose: It seeks to understand the subjective meaning individuals attribute to an experience.
- In a study on the lived experiences of cancer survivors, researchers might conduct in-depth interviews to explore the subjective meaning individuals attach to their diagnosis, treatment, and recovery. Phenomenology seeks to uncover the essence of these experiences, capturing the emotional, psychological, and social dimensions that shape survivors’ perspectives on their journey through cancer.
- Focus: Grounded theory aims to develop a theory grounded in the data, allowing patterns and concepts to emerge organically.
- Data Collection: It involves constant comparative analysis of interviews or observations, with coding and categorization.
- Purpose: This approach is used when researchers want to generate theories or concepts based on the data itself.
- Research on retirement transitions using grounded theory might involve interviewing retirees from various backgrounds. Through constant comparison and iterative analysis, researchers may identify emerging themes and categories, ultimately developing a theory that explains the commonalities and variations in retirees’ experiences as they navigate this life stage.
- Focus: Case studies delve deeply into a specific case or context to understand it in detail.
- Data Collection: Multiple sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, are used to provide a comprehensive view.
- Purpose: Case studies are useful for exploring complex phenomena within their real-life context.
- A case study on a company’s crisis response could involve a detailed examination of communication strategies, decision-making processes, and the organizational dynamics during a specific crisis. By analyzing the case in-depth, researchers gain insights into how the company’s actions and decisions influenced the outcome of the crisis and what lessons can be learned for future situations.
- Focus: Narrative research examines the stories people tell to understand how individuals construct meaning and identity.
- Data Collection: It involves collecting and analyzing narratives through interviews, personal accounts, or written documents.
- Purpose: Narrative research is often used to explore personal or cultural stories and their implications.
- Examining the life stories of refugees may involve collecting and analyzing personal narratives through interviews or written accounts. Researchers explore how displacement has shaped the refugees’ identities, relationships, and perceptions of home, providing a nuanced understanding of their experiences through the lens of storytelling.
- Focus: Action research involves collaboration between researchers and participants to identify and solve practical problems.
- Data Collection: Researchers collect data through cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
- Purpose: It is geared towards facilitating positive change in a particular context or community.
- In an educational setting, action research might involve teachers and researchers collaborating to address a specific classroom challenge. Through cycles of planning, implementing interventions, and reflecting, the aim is to improve teaching practices and student learning outcomes, with the findings contributing to both practical solutions and the broader understanding of effective pedagogy.
- Focus: Content analysis examines the content of written, visual, or audio materials to identify patterns or themes.
- Data Collection: Researchers systematically analyze texts, images, or media content using coding and categorization.
- Purpose: It is often used to study communication, media, or cultural artifacts.
- A content analysis of news articles covering a specific social issue, such as climate change, could involve systematically coding and categorizing language and themes. This approach allows researchers to identify patterns in media discourse, explore public perceptions, and understand how the issue is framed in the media.
- Focus: Critical ethnography combines ethnographic methods with a critical perspective to examine power structures and social inequalities.
- Data Collection: Researchers engage in participant observation, interviews, and document analysis with a focus on social justice issues.
- Purpose: This approach aims to explore and challenge existing power dynamics and social structures.
- A critical ethnography examining gender dynamics in a workplace might involve observing daily interactions, conducting interviews, and analyzing policies. Researchers, guided by a critical perspective, aim to uncover power imbalances, stereotypes, and systemic inequalities within the organizational culture, contributing to a deeper understanding of gender dynamics in the workplace.
- Focus: Similar to grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory acknowledges the role of the researcher in shaping interpretations.
- Data Collection: It involves a flexible approach to data collection, including interviews, observations, or documents.
- Purpose: This approach recognizes the co-construction of meaning between researchers and participants.
- In a study on the experiences of individuals with chronic illness, researchers employing constructivist grounded theory might engage in open-ended interviews and data collection. The focus is on co-constructing meanings with participants, acknowledging the dynamic relationship between the researcher and those being studied, ultimately leading to a theory that reflects the collaborative nature of knowledge creation.
These qualitative research designs offer diverse methods for exploring and understanding the complexities of human experiences, behaviors, and social phenomena. The choice of design depends on the research question, the context of the study, and the desired depth of understanding.
Best practices for Qualitative Research Design
Qualitative research design requires careful planning and execution to ensure the credibility, reliability, and richness of the findings. Here are some best practices to consider when designing qualitative research:
- Clearly articulate the research questions or objectives to guide the study. Ensure they are specific, open-ended, and aligned with the qualitative research approach.
- Select a qualitative research design that aligns with the research questions and objectives. Consider approaches such as ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, or case study based on the nature of the study.
- Conduct a comprehensive literature review to understand existing theories, concepts, and research related to the study. This helps situate the research within the broader scholarly context.
- Use purposeful or theoretical sampling to select participants who can provide rich information related to the research questions. Aim for diversity in participants to capture a range of perspectives.
- Clearly outline the data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, or document analysis. Develop detailed protocols, guides, or questionnaires to maintain consistency across data collection sessions.
- Prioritize building trust and rapport with participants. Clearly communicate the study’s purpose, obtain informed consent, and establish a comfortable environment for open and honest discussions.
- Adhere to ethical guidelines throughout the research process. Protect participant confidentiality, respect their autonomy, and obtain ethical approval from relevant review boards.
- Pilot the data collection instruments and procedures with a small sample to identify and address any ambiguities, refine questions, and enhance the overall quality of data collection.
- Use a systematic approach to analyze data, such as thematic analysis, constant comparison, or narrative analysis. Maintain transparency in the coding process, and consider inter-coder reliability if multiple researchers are involved.
- Acknowledge and document the researcher’s background, biases, and perspectives. Practice reflexivity by continually reflecting on how the researcher’s positionality may influence the study.
- Enhance the credibility of findings by using multiple data sources and methods. Triangulation helps validate results and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic.
- Consider member checking, where researchers share preliminary findings with participants to validate interpretations. This process enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
- Keep a detailed journal documenting decisions, reflections, and insights throughout the research process. This journal helps provide transparency and can contribute to the rigor of the study.
- Aim for data saturation, the point at which new data no longer provide additional insights. Saturation ensures thorough exploration of the research questions and increases the robustness of the findings.
- Clearly document the research process, from design to findings. Provide a detailed and transparent account of the study methodology, facilitating the reproducibility and evaluation of the research.
By incorporating these best practices, qualitative researchers can enhance the rigor, credibility, and relevance of their studies, ultimately contributing valuable insights to the field.
Interested in learning more about the fields of product, research, and design? Search our articles here for helpful information spanning a wide range of topics!
Usability Testing Questions for Improving User’s Experience
14 best performance testing tools for application reliability, a complete guide to usability testing methods for better ux, ux mapping methods and how to create effective maps.
- Privacy Policy
![what is qualitative research design Research Method](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/logo.png)
Home » Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide
Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide
Table of Contents
![what is qualitative research design Qualitative Research](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Qualitative_Research-1024x576.jpg)
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on exploring and understanding people’s beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. It seeks to answer research questions through the examination of subjective data, such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and textual analysis.
Qualitative research aims to uncover the meaning and significance of social phenomena, and it typically involves a more flexible and iterative approach to data collection and analysis compared to quantitative research. Qualitative research is often used in fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education.
Qualitative Research Methods
![what is qualitative research design Types of Qualitative Research](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Types_of_Qualitative_Research-1024x576.jpg)
Qualitative Research Methods are as follows:
One-to-One Interview
This method involves conducting an interview with a single participant to gain a detailed understanding of their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. One-to-one interviews can be conducted in-person, over the phone, or through video conferencing. The interviewer typically uses open-ended questions to encourage the participant to share their thoughts and feelings. One-to-one interviews are useful for gaining detailed insights into individual experiences.
Focus Groups
This method involves bringing together a group of people to discuss a specific topic in a structured setting. The focus group is led by a moderator who guides the discussion and encourages participants to share their thoughts and opinions. Focus groups are useful for generating ideas and insights, exploring social norms and attitudes, and understanding group dynamics.
Ethnographic Studies
This method involves immersing oneself in a culture or community to gain a deep understanding of its norms, beliefs, and practices. Ethnographic studies typically involve long-term fieldwork and observation, as well as interviews and document analysis. Ethnographic studies are useful for understanding the cultural context of social phenomena and for gaining a holistic understanding of complex social processes.
Text Analysis
This method involves analyzing written or spoken language to identify patterns and themes. Text analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative text analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Text analysis is useful for understanding media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.
This method involves an in-depth examination of a single person, group, or event to gain an understanding of complex phenomena. Case studies typically involve a combination of data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case. Case studies are useful for exploring unique or rare cases, and for generating hypotheses for further research.
Process of Observation
This method involves systematically observing and recording behaviors and interactions in natural settings. The observer may take notes, use audio or video recordings, or use other methods to document what they see. Process of observation is useful for understanding social interactions, cultural practices, and the context in which behaviors occur.
Record Keeping
This method involves keeping detailed records of observations, interviews, and other data collected during the research process. Record keeping is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data, and for providing a basis for analysis and interpretation.
This method involves collecting data from a large sample of participants through a structured questionnaire. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, through mail, or online. Surveys are useful for collecting data on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and for identifying patterns and trends in a population.
Qualitative data analysis is a process of turning unstructured data into meaningful insights. It involves extracting and organizing information from sources like interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The goal is to understand people’s attitudes, behaviors, and motivations
Qualitative Research Analysis Methods
Qualitative Research analysis methods involve a systematic approach to interpreting and making sense of the data collected in qualitative research. Here are some common qualitative data analysis methods:
Thematic Analysis
This method involves identifying patterns or themes in the data that are relevant to the research question. The researcher reviews the data, identifies keywords or phrases, and groups them into categories or themes. Thematic analysis is useful for identifying patterns across multiple data sources and for generating new insights into the research topic.
Content Analysis
This method involves analyzing the content of written or spoken language to identify key themes or concepts. Content analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative content analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Content analysis is useful for identifying patterns in media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.
Discourse Analysis
This method involves analyzing language to understand how it constructs meaning and shapes social interactions. Discourse analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is useful for understanding how language shapes social interactions, cultural norms, and power relationships.
Grounded Theory Analysis
This method involves developing a theory or explanation based on the data collected. Grounded theory analysis starts with the data and uses an iterative process of coding and analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data. The theory or explanation that emerges is grounded in the data, rather than preconceived hypotheses. Grounded theory analysis is useful for understanding complex social phenomena and for generating new theoretical insights.
Narrative Analysis
This method involves analyzing the stories or narratives that participants share to gain insights into their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. Narrative analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as structural analysis, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis. Narrative analysis is useful for understanding how individuals construct their identities, make sense of their experiences, and communicate their values and beliefs.
Phenomenological Analysis
This method involves analyzing how individuals make sense of their experiences and the meanings they attach to them. Phenomenological analysis typically involves in-depth interviews with participants to explore their experiences in detail. Phenomenological analysis is useful for understanding subjective experiences and for developing a rich understanding of human consciousness.
Comparative Analysis
This method involves comparing and contrasting data across different cases or groups to identify similarities and differences. Comparative analysis can be used to identify patterns or themes that are common across multiple cases, as well as to identify unique or distinctive features of individual cases. Comparative analysis is useful for understanding how social phenomena vary across different contexts and groups.
Applications of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research has many applications across different fields and industries. Here are some examples of how qualitative research is used:
- Market Research: Qualitative research is often used in market research to understand consumer attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with consumers to gather insights into their experiences and perceptions of products and services.
- Health Care: Qualitative research is used in health care to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
- Education: Qualitative research is used in education to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. Researchers conduct classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
- Social Work : Qualitative research is used in social work to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
- Anthropology : Qualitative research is used in anthropology to understand different cultures and societies. Researchers conduct ethnographic studies and observe and interview members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
- Psychology : Qualitative research is used in psychology to understand human behavior and mental processes. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
- Public Policy : Qualitative research is used in public policy to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.
How to Conduct Qualitative Research
Here are some general steps for conducting qualitative research:
- Identify your research question: Qualitative research starts with a research question or set of questions that you want to explore. This question should be focused and specific, but also broad enough to allow for exploration and discovery.
- Select your research design: There are different types of qualitative research designs, including ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. You should select a design that aligns with your research question and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
- Recruit participants: Once you have your research question and design, you need to recruit participants. The number of participants you need will depend on your research design and the scope of your research. You can recruit participants through advertisements, social media, or through personal networks.
- Collect data: There are different methods for collecting qualitative data, including interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. You should select the method or methods that align with your research design and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
- Analyze data: Once you have collected your data, you need to analyze it. This involves reviewing your data, identifying patterns and themes, and developing codes to organize your data. You can use different software programs to help you analyze your data, or you can do it manually.
- Interpret data: Once you have analyzed your data, you need to interpret it. This involves making sense of the patterns and themes you have identified, and developing insights and conclusions that answer your research question. You should be guided by your research question and use your data to support your conclusions.
- Communicate results: Once you have interpreted your data, you need to communicate your results. This can be done through academic papers, presentations, or reports. You should be clear and concise in your communication, and use examples and quotes from your data to support your findings.
Examples of Qualitative Research
Here are some real-time examples of qualitative research:
- Customer Feedback: A company may conduct qualitative research to understand the feedback and experiences of its customers. This may involve conducting focus groups or one-on-one interviews with customers to gather insights into their attitudes, behaviors, and preferences.
- Healthcare : A healthcare provider may conduct qualitative research to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
- Education : An educational institution may conduct qualitative research to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. This may involve conducting classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
- Social Work: A social worker may conduct qualitative research to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
- Anthropology : An anthropologist may conduct qualitative research to understand different cultures and societies. This may involve conducting ethnographic studies and observing and interviewing members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
- Psychology : A psychologist may conduct qualitative research to understand human behavior and mental processes. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
- Public Policy: A government agency or non-profit organization may conduct qualitative research to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. This may involve conducting focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.
Purpose of Qualitative Research
The purpose of qualitative research is to explore and understand the subjective experiences, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research aims to provide in-depth, descriptive information that can help researchers develop insights and theories about complex social phenomena.
Qualitative research can serve multiple purposes, including:
- Exploring new or emerging phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring new or emerging phenomena, such as new technologies or social trends. This type of research can help researchers develop a deeper understanding of these phenomena and identify potential areas for further study.
- Understanding complex social phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring complex social phenomena, such as cultural beliefs, social norms, or political processes. This type of research can help researchers develop a more nuanced understanding of these phenomena and identify factors that may influence them.
- Generating new theories or hypotheses: Qualitative research can be useful for generating new theories or hypotheses about social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data about individuals’ experiences and perspectives, researchers can develop insights that may challenge existing theories or lead to new lines of inquiry.
- Providing context for quantitative data: Qualitative research can be useful for providing context for quantitative data. By gathering qualitative data alongside quantitative data, researchers can develop a more complete understanding of complex social phenomena and identify potential explanations for quantitative findings.
When to use Qualitative Research
Here are some situations where qualitative research may be appropriate:
- Exploring a new area: If little is known about a particular topic, qualitative research can help to identify key issues, generate hypotheses, and develop new theories.
- Understanding complex phenomena: Qualitative research can be used to investigate complex social, cultural, or organizational phenomena that are difficult to measure quantitatively.
- Investigating subjective experiences: Qualitative research is particularly useful for investigating the subjective experiences of individuals or groups, such as their attitudes, beliefs, values, or emotions.
- Conducting formative research: Qualitative research can be used in the early stages of a research project to develop research questions, identify potential research participants, and refine research methods.
- Evaluating interventions or programs: Qualitative research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or programs by collecting data on participants’ experiences, attitudes, and behaviors.
Characteristics of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is characterized by several key features, including:
- Focus on subjective experience: Qualitative research is concerned with understanding the subjective experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Researchers aim to explore the meanings that people attach to their experiences and to understand the social and cultural factors that shape these meanings.
- Use of open-ended questions: Qualitative research relies on open-ended questions that allow participants to provide detailed, in-depth responses. Researchers seek to elicit rich, descriptive data that can provide insights into participants’ experiences and perspectives.
- Sampling-based on purpose and diversity: Qualitative research often involves purposive sampling, in which participants are selected based on specific criteria related to the research question. Researchers may also seek to include participants with diverse experiences and perspectives to capture a range of viewpoints.
- Data collection through multiple methods: Qualitative research typically involves the use of multiple data collection methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation. This allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data from multiple sources, which can provide a more complete picture of participants’ experiences and perspectives.
- Inductive data analysis: Qualitative research relies on inductive data analysis, in which researchers develop theories and insights based on the data rather than testing pre-existing hypotheses. Researchers use coding and thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data and to develop theories and explanations based on these patterns.
- Emphasis on researcher reflexivity: Qualitative research recognizes the importance of the researcher’s role in shaping the research process and outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own biases and assumptions and to be transparent about their role in the research process.
Advantages of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research offers several advantages over other research methods, including:
- Depth and detail: Qualitative research allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data that provides a deeper understanding of complex social phenomena. Through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation, researchers can gather detailed information about participants’ experiences and perspectives that may be missed by other research methods.
- Flexibility : Qualitative research is a flexible approach that allows researchers to adapt their methods to the research question and context. Researchers can adjust their research methods in real-time to gather more information or explore unexpected findings.
- Contextual understanding: Qualitative research is well-suited to exploring the social and cultural context in which individuals or groups are situated. Researchers can gather information about cultural norms, social structures, and historical events that may influence participants’ experiences and perspectives.
- Participant perspective : Qualitative research prioritizes the perspective of participants, allowing researchers to explore subjective experiences and understand the meanings that participants attach to their experiences.
- Theory development: Qualitative research can contribute to the development of new theories and insights about complex social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data and using inductive data analysis, researchers can develop new theories and explanations that may challenge existing understandings.
- Validity : Qualitative research can offer high validity by using multiple data collection methods, purposive and diverse sampling, and researcher reflexivity. This can help ensure that findings are credible and trustworthy.
Limitations of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research also has some limitations, including:
- Subjectivity : Qualitative research relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers, which can introduce bias into the research process. The researcher’s perspective, beliefs, and experiences can influence the way data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
- Limited generalizability: Qualitative research typically involves small, purposive samples that may not be representative of larger populations. This limits the generalizability of findings to other contexts or populations.
- Time-consuming: Qualitative research can be a time-consuming process, requiring significant resources for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
- Resource-intensive: Qualitative research may require more resources than other research methods, including specialized training for researchers, specialized software for data analysis, and transcription services.
- Limited reliability: Qualitative research may be less reliable than quantitative research, as it relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers. This can make it difficult to replicate findings or compare results across different studies.
- Ethics and confidentiality: Qualitative research involves collecting sensitive information from participants, which raises ethical concerns about confidentiality and informed consent. Researchers must take care to protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants and obtain informed consent.
Also see Research Methods
About the author
Muhammad Hassan
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
You may also like
![what is qualitative research design Focus Groups in Qualitative Research](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Focus_Groups_in_Qualitative_Research-145x100.png)
Focus Groups – Steps, Examples and Guide
![what is qualitative research design Explanatory Research](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Explanatory_Research-145x100.png)
Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide
![what is qualitative research design Questionnaire](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Questionnaire-145x100.png)
Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples
![what is qualitative research design Correlational Research Design](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Correlational_Research_Design-145x100.png)
Correlational Research – Methods, Types and...
![what is qualitative research design Ethnographic Research](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Ethnographic_Research-145x100.png)
Ethnographic Research -Types, Methods and Guide
![what is qualitative research design Descriptive Research Design](https://researchmethod.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Descriptive_Research_Design-145x100.png)
Descriptive Research Design – Types, Methods and...
Qualitative Research : Definition
Qualitative research is the naturalistic study of social meanings and processes, using interviews, observations, and the analysis of texts and images. In contrast to quantitative researchers, whose statistical methods enable broad generalizations about populations (for example, comparisons of the percentages of U.S. demographic groups who vote in particular ways), qualitative researchers use in-depth studies of the social world to analyze how and why groups think and act in particular ways (for instance, case studies of the experiences that shape political views).
Events and Workshops
- Introduction to NVivo Have you just collected your data and wondered what to do next? Come join us for an introductory session on utilizing NVivo to support your analytical process. This session will only cover features of the software and how to import your records. Please feel free to attend any of the following sessions below: April 25th, 2024 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm Green Library - SVA Conference Room 125 May 9th, 2024 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm Green Library - SVA Conference Room 125
- Next: Choose an approach >>
- Choose an approach
- Find studies
- Learn methods
- Getting Started
- Get software
- Get data for secondary analysis
- Network with researchers
![what is qualitative research design Profile Photo](https://d2jv02qf7xgjwx.cloudfront.net/accounts/385106/profiles/394530/thumbnail__DSF2041_websize.jpg)
- Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 2:09 PM
- URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/qualitative_research
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
- Knowledge Base
- Methodology
- What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples
What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples
Published on 4 April 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 30 January 2023.
Qualitative research involves collecting and analysing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.
Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analysing numerical data for statistical analysis.
Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, and history.
- How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
- How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
- What factors influence employee retention in a large organisation?
- How is anxiety experienced around the world?
- How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?
Table of contents
Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.
Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.
Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography, action research, phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasise different aims and perspectives.
Approach | What does it involve? |
---|---|
Grounded theory | Researchers collect rich data on a topic of interest and develop theories . |
Researchers immerse themselves in groups or organisations to understand their cultures. | |
Researchers and participants collaboratively link theory to practice to drive social change. | |
Phenomenological research | Researchers investigate a phenomenon or event by describing and interpreting participants’ lived experiences. |
Narrative research | Researchers examine how stories are told to understand how participants perceive and make sense of their experiences. |
Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.
Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:
- Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
- Interviews: personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
- Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
- Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
- Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
- You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
- You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
- You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.
Qualitative researchers often consider themselves ‘instruments’ in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.
For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analysing the data.
Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.
Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:
- Prepare and organise your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
- Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
- Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorise your data.
- Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
- Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.
There are several specific approaches to analysing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasise different concepts.
Approach | When to use | Example |
---|---|---|
To describe and categorise common words, phrases, and ideas in qualitative data. | A market researcher could perform content analysis to find out what kind of language is used in descriptions of therapeutic apps. | |
To identify and interpret patterns and themes in qualitative data. | A psychologist could apply thematic analysis to travel blogs to explore how tourism shapes self-identity. | |
To examine the content, structure, and design of texts. | A media researcher could use textual analysis to understand how news coverage of celebrities has changed in the past decade. | |
To study communication and how language is used to achieve effects in specific contexts. | A political scientist could use discourse analysis to study how politicians generate trust in election campaigns. |
Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:
- Flexibility
The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.
- Natural settings
Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.
- Meaningful insights
Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.
- Generation of new ideas
Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.
Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analysing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:
- Unreliability
The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.
- Subjectivity
Due to the researcher’s primary role in analysing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.
- Limited generalisability
Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalisable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .
- Labour-intensive
Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.
Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.
Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.
There are five common approaches to qualitative research :
- Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
- Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organisation to understand its culture.
- Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
- Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
- Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.
Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.
There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:
- Prepare and organise your data.
- Review and explore your data.
- Develop a data coding system.
- Assign codes to the data.
- Identify recurring themes.
The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
Bhandari, P. (2023, January 30). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/introduction-to-qualitative-research/
Is this article helpful?
![what is qualitative research design Pritha Bhandari](https://www.scribbr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pritha-author-pic.jpg)
Pritha Bhandari
![what is qualitative research design Carnegie Mellon University Libraries](https://library.cmu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-08/UL_CMU_Logo_Horiz_Black.png)
Qualitative Research Design: Start
Qualitative Research Design
![what is qualitative research design](https://libapps.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/338145/images/IMG_1611.jpg)
What is Qualitative research design?
Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervening or introducing treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. It answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much . It could be structured as a stand-alone study, purely relying on qualitative data or it could be part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data.
Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research. Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research, which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis. Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.
While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. For instance, qualitative research can help expand and deepen understanding of data or results obtained from quantitative analysis. For example, say a quantitative analysis has determined that there is a correlation between length of stay and level of patient satisfaction, but why does this correlation exist? This dual-focus scenario shows one way in which qualitative and quantitative research could be integrated together.
Research Paradigms
- Positivist versus Post-Positivist
- Social Constructivist (this paradigm/ideology mostly birth qualitative studies)
Events Relating to the Qualitative Research and Community Engagement Workshops @ CMU Libraries
CMU Libraries is committed to helping members of our community become data experts. To that end, CMU is offering public facing workshops that discuss Qualitative Research, Coding, and Community Engagement best practices.
The following workshops are a part of a broader series on using data. Please follow the links to register for the events.
Qualitative Coding
Using Community Data to improve Outcome (Grant Writing)
Survey Design
Upcoming Event: March 21st, 2024 (12:00pm -1:00 pm)
Community Engagement and Collaboration Event
Join us for an event to improve, build on and expand the connections between Carnegie Mellon University resources and the Pittsburgh community. CMU resources such as the Libraries and Sustainability Initiative can be leveraged by users not affiliated with the university, but barriers can prevent them from fully engaging.
The conversation features representatives from CMU departments and local organizations about the community engagement efforts currently underway at CMU and opportunities to improve upon them. Speakers will highlight current and ongoing projects and share resources to support future collaboration.
Event Moderators:
Taiwo Lasisi, CLIR Postdoctoral Fellow in Community Data Literacy, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries
Emma Slayton, Data Curation, Visualization, & GIS Specialist, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries
Nicky Agate , Associate Dean for Academic Engagement, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries
Chelsea Cohen , The University’s Executive fellow for community engagement, Carnegie Mellon University
Sarah Ceurvorst , Academic Pathways Manager, Program Director, LEAP (Leadership, Excellence, Access, Persistence) Carnegie Mellon University
Julia Poeppibg , Associate Director of Partnership Development, Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University
Scott Wolovich , Director of New Sun Rising, Pittsburgh
Additional workshops and events will be forthcoming. Watch this space for updates.
Workshop Organizer
![what is qualitative research design Profile Photo](https://d2jv02qf7xgjwx.cloudfront.net/accounts/338145/profiles/344847/IMG_2292.jpg)
Qualitative Research Methods
What are Qualitative Research methods?
Qualitative research adopts numerous methods or techniques including interviews, focus groups, and observation. Interviews may be unstructured, with open-ended questions on a topic and the interviewer adapts to the responses. Structured interviews have a predetermined number of questions that every participant is asked. It is usually one-on-one and is appropriate for sensitive topics or topics needing an in-depth exploration. Focus groups are often held with 8-12 target participants and are used when group dynamics and collective views on a topic are desired. Researchers can be participant observers to share the experiences of the subject or non-participant or detached observers.
What constitutes a good research question? Does the question drive research design choices?
According to Doody and Bailey (2014);
We can only develop a good research question by consulting relevant literature, colleagues, and supervisors experienced in the area of research. (inductive interactions).
Helps to have a directed research aim and objective.
Researchers should not be “ research trendy” and have enough evidence. This is why research objectives are important. It helps to take time, and resources into consideration.
Research questions can be developed from theoretical knowledge, previous research or experience, or a practical need at work (Parahoo 2014). They have numerous roles, such as identifying the importance of the research and providing clarity of purpose for the research, in terms of what the research intends to achieve in the end.
Qualitative Research Questions
What constitutes a good Qualitative research question?
A good qualitative question answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much. It could be structured as a stand-alone study, purely relying on qualitative data or it could be part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions and behavior.
Examples of good Qualitative Research Questions:
What are people's thoughts on the new library?
How does it feel to be a first-generation student attending college?
Difference example (between Qualitative and Quantitative research questions):
How many college students signed up for the new semester? (Quan)
How do college students feel about the new semester? What are their experiences so far? (Qual)
- Qualitative Research Design Workshop Powerpoint
Foley G, Timonen V. Using Grounded Theory Method to Capture and Analyze Health Care Experiences. Health Serv Res. 2015 Aug;50(4):1195-210. [ PMC free article: PMC4545354 ] [ PubMed: 25523315 ]
Devers KJ. How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1153-88. [ PMC free article: PMC1089058 ] [ PubMed: 10591278 ]
Huston P, Rowan M. Qualitative studies. Their role in medical research. Can Fam Physician. 1998 Nov;44:2453-8. [ PMC free article: PMC2277956 ] [ PubMed: 9839063 ]
Corner EJ, Murray EJ, Brett SJ. Qualitative, grounded theory exploration of patients' experience of early mobilisation, rehabilitation and recovery after critical illness. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 24;9(2):e026348. [ PMC free article: PMC6443050 ] [ PubMed: 30804034 ]
Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):9-18. [ PMC free article: PMC5774281 ] [ PubMed: 29199486 ]
Houghton C, Murphy K, Meehan B, Thomas J, Brooker D, Casey D. From screening to synthesis: using nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2017 Mar;26(5-6):873-881. [ PubMed: 27324875 ]
Soratto J, Pires DEP, Friese S. Thematic content analysis using ATLAS.ti software: Potentialities for researchs in health. Rev Bras Enferm. 2020;73(3):e20190250. [ PubMed: 32321144 ]
Zamawe FC. The Implication of Using NVivo Software in Qualitative Data Analysis: Evidence-Based Reflections. Malawi Med J. 2015 Mar;27(1):13-5. [ PMC free article: PMC4478399 ] [ PubMed: 26137192 ]
Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):120-124. [ PMC free article: PMC8816392 ] [ PubMed: 29202616 ]
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 1-440.
O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51. [ PubMed: 24979285 ]
Palermo C, King O, Brock T, Brown T, Crampton P, Hall H, Macaulay J, Morphet J, Mundy M, Oliaro L, Paynter S, Williams B, Wright C, E Rees C. Setting priorities for health education research: A mixed methods study. Med Teach. 2019 Sep;41(9):1029-1038. [ PubMed: 31141390 ]
- Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 4:25 PM
- URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=1346006
Qualitative Research: Characteristics, Design, Methods & Examples
Lauren McCall
MSc Health Psychology Graduate
MSc, Health Psychology, University of Nottingham
Lauren obtained an MSc in Health Psychology from The University of Nottingham with a distinction classification.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul McLeod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on gathering and analyzing non-numerical data to gain a deeper understanding of human behavior, experiences, and perspectives.
It aims to explore the “why” and “how” of a phenomenon rather than the “what,” “where,” and “when” typically addressed by quantitative research.
Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on gathering and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis, qualitative research involves researchers interpreting data to identify themes, patterns, and meanings.
Qualitative research can be used to:
- Gain deep contextual understandings of the subjective social reality of individuals
- To answer questions about experience and meaning from the participant’s perspective
- To design hypotheses, theory must be researched using qualitative methods to determine what is important before research can begin.
Examples of qualitative research questions include:
- How does stress influence young adults’ behavior?
- What factors influence students’ school attendance rates in developed countries?
- How do adults interpret binge drinking in the UK?
- What are the psychological impacts of cervical cancer screening in women?
- How can mental health lessons be integrated into the school curriculum?
Characteristics
Naturalistic setting.
Individuals are studied in their natural setting to gain a deeper understanding of how people experience the world. This enables the researcher to understand a phenomenon close to how participants experience it.
Naturalistic settings provide valuable contextual information to help researchers better understand and interpret the data they collect.
The environment, social interactions, and cultural factors can all influence behavior and experiences, and these elements are more easily observed in real-world settings.
Reality is socially constructed
Qualitative research aims to understand how participants make meaning of their experiences – individually or in social contexts. It assumes there is no objective reality and that the social world is interpreted (Yilmaz, 2013).
The primacy of subject matter
The primary aim of qualitative research is to understand the perspectives, experiences, and beliefs of individuals who have experienced the phenomenon selected for research rather than the average experiences of groups of people (Minichiello, 1990).
An in-depth understanding is attained since qualitative techniques allow participants to freely disclose their experiences, thoughts, and feelings without constraint (Tenny et al., 2022).
Variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure
Factors such as experiences, behaviors, and attitudes are complex and interwoven, so they cannot be reduced to isolated variables , making them difficult to measure quantitatively.
However, a qualitative approach enables participants to describe what, why, or how they were thinking/ feeling during a phenomenon being studied (Yilmaz, 2013).
Emic (insider’s point of view)
The phenomenon being studied is centered on the participants’ point of view (Minichiello, 1990).
Emic is used to describe how participants interact, communicate, and behave in the research setting (Scarduzio, 2017).
Interpretive analysis
In qualitative research, interpretive analysis is crucial in making sense of the collected data.
This process involves examining the raw data, such as interview transcripts, field notes, or documents, and identifying the underlying themes, patterns, and meanings that emerge from the participants’ experiences and perspectives.
Collecting Qualitative Data
There are four main research design methods used to collect qualitative data: observations, interviews, focus groups, and ethnography.
Observations
This method involves watching and recording phenomena as they occur in nature. Observation can be divided into two types: participant and non-participant observation.
In participant observation, the researcher actively participates in the situation/events being observed.
In non-participant observation, the researcher is not an active part of the observation and tries not to influence the behaviors they are observing (Busetto et al., 2020).
Observations can be covert (participants are unaware that a researcher is observing them) or overt (participants are aware of the researcher’s presence and know they are being observed).
However, awareness of an observer’s presence may influence participants’ behavior.
Interviews give researchers a window into the world of a participant by seeking their account of an event, situation, or phenomenon. They are usually conducted on a one-to-one basis and can be distinguished according to the level at which they are structured (Punch, 2013).
Structured interviews involve predetermined questions and sequences to ensure replicability and comparability. However, they are unable to explore emerging issues.
Informal interviews consist of spontaneous, casual conversations which are closer to the truth of a phenomenon. However, information is gathered using quick notes made by the researcher and is therefore subject to recall bias.
Semi-structured interviews have a flexible structure, phrasing, and placement so emerging issues can be explored (Denny & Weckesser, 2022).
The use of probing questions and clarification can lead to a detailed understanding, but semi-structured interviews can be time-consuming and subject to interviewer bias.
Focus groups
Similar to interviews, focus groups elicit a rich and detailed account of an experience. However, focus groups are more dynamic since participants with shared characteristics construct this account together (Denny & Weckesser, 2022).
A shared narrative is built between participants to capture a group experience shaped by a shared context.
The researcher takes on the role of a moderator, who will establish ground rules and guide the discussion by following a topic guide to focus the group discussions.
Typically, focus groups have 4-10 participants as a discussion can be difficult to facilitate with more than this, and this number allows everyone the time to speak.
Ethnography
Ethnography is a methodology used to study a group of people’s behaviors and social interactions in their environment (Reeves et al., 2008).
Data are collected using methods such as observations, field notes, or structured/ unstructured interviews.
The aim of ethnography is to provide detailed, holistic insights into people’s behavior and perspectives within their natural setting. In order to achieve this, researchers immerse themselves in a community or organization.
Due to the flexibility and real-world focus of ethnography, researchers are able to gather an in-depth, nuanced understanding of people’s experiences, knowledge and perspectives that are influenced by culture and society.
In order to develop a representative picture of a particular culture/ context, researchers must conduct extensive field work.
This can be time-consuming as researchers may need to immerse themselves into a community/ culture for a few days, or possibly a few years.
Qualitative Data Analysis Methods
Different methods can be used for analyzing qualitative data. The researcher chooses based on the objectives of their study.
The researcher plays a key role in the interpretation of data, making decisions about the coding, theming, decontextualizing, and recontextualizing of data (Starks & Trinidad, 2007).
Grounded theory
Grounded theory is a qualitative method specifically designed to inductively generate theory from data. It was developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 (Glaser & Strauss, 2017).
This methodology aims to develop theories (rather than test hypotheses) that explain a social process, action, or interaction (Petty et al., 2012). To inform the developing theory, data collection and analysis run simultaneously.
There are three key types of coding used in grounded theory: initial (open), intermediate (axial), and advanced (selective) coding.
Throughout the analysis, memos should be created to document methodological and theoretical ideas about the data. Data should be collected and analyzed until data saturation is reached and a theory is developed.
Content analysis
Content analysis was first used in the early twentieth century to analyze textual materials such as newspapers and political speeches.
Content analysis is a research method used to identify and analyze the presence and patterns of themes, concepts, or words in data (Vaismoradi et al., 2013).
This research method can be used to analyze data in different formats, which can be written, oral, or visual.
The goal of content analysis is to develop themes that capture the underlying meanings of data (Schreier, 2012).
Qualitative content analysis can be used to validate existing theories, support the development of new models and theories, and provide in-depth descriptions of particular settings or experiences.
The following six steps provide a guideline for how to conduct qualitative content analysis.
- Define a Research Question : To start content analysis, a clear research question should be developed.
- Identify and Collect Data : Establish the inclusion criteria for your data. Find the relevant sources to analyze.
- Define the Unit or Theme of Analysis : Categorize the content into themes. Themes can be a word, phrase, or sentence.
- Develop Rules for Coding your Data : Define a set of coding rules to ensure that all data are coded consistently.
- Code the Data : Follow the coding rules to categorize data into themes.
- Analyze the Results and Draw Conclusions : Examine the data to identify patterns and draw conclusions in relation to your research question.
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysis is a research method used to study written/ spoken language in relation to its social context (Wood & Kroger, 2000).
In discourse analysis, the researcher interprets details of language materials and the context in which it is situated.
Discourse analysis aims to understand the functions of language (how language is used in real life) and how meaning is conveyed by language in different contexts. Researchers use discourse analysis to investigate social groups and how language is used to achieve specific communication goals.
Different methods of discourse analysis can be used depending on the aims and objectives of a study. However, the following steps provide a guideline on how to conduct discourse analysis.
- Define the Research Question : Develop a relevant research question to frame the analysis.
- Gather Data and Establish the Context : Collect research materials (e.g., interview transcripts, documents). Gather factual details and review the literature to construct a theory about the social and historical context of your study.
- Analyze the Content : Closely examine various components of the text, such as the vocabulary, sentences, paragraphs, and structure of the text. Identify patterns relevant to the research question to create codes, then group these into themes.
- Review the Results : Reflect on the findings to examine the function of the language, and the meaning and context of the discourse.
Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is a method used to identify, interpret, and report patterns in data, such as commonalities or contrasts.
Although the origin of thematic analysis can be traced back to the early twentieth century, understanding and clarity of thematic analysis is attributed to Braun and Clarke (2006).
Thematic analysis aims to develop themes (patterns of meaning) across a dataset to address a research question.
In thematic analysis, qualitative data is gathered using techniques such as interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. Audio recordings are transcribed. The dataset is then explored and interpreted by a researcher to identify patterns.
This occurs through the rigorous process of data familiarisation, coding, theme development, and revision. These identified patterns provide a summary of the dataset and can be used to address a research question.
Themes are developed by exploring the implicit and explicit meanings within the data. Two different approaches are used to generate themes: inductive and deductive.
An inductive approach allows themes to emerge from the data. In contrast, a deductive approach uses existing theories or knowledge to apply preconceived ideas to the data.
Phases of Thematic Analysis
Braun and Clarke (2006) provide a guide of the six phases of thematic analysis. These phases can be applied flexibly to fit research questions and data.
Phase | |
---|---|
1. Gather and transcribe data | Gather raw data, for example interviews or focus groups, and transcribe audio recordings fully |
2. Familiarization with data | Read and reread all your data from beginning to end; note down initial ideas |
3. Create initial codes | Start identifying preliminary codes which highlight important features of the data and may be relevant to the research question |
4. Create new codes which encapsulate potential themes | Review initial codes and explore any similarities, differences, or contradictions to uncover underlying themes; create a map to visualize identified themes |
5. Take a break then return to the data | Take a break and then return later to review themes |
6. Evaluate themes for good fit | Last opportunity for analysis; check themes are supported and saturated with data |
Template analysis
Template analysis refers to a specific method of thematic analysis which uses hierarchical coding (Brooks et al., 2014).
Template analysis is used to analyze textual data, for example, interview transcripts or open-ended responses on a written questionnaire.
To conduct template analysis, a coding template must be developed (usually from a subset of the data) and subsequently revised and refined. This template represents the themes identified by researchers as important in the dataset.
Codes are ordered hierarchically within the template, with the highest-level codes demonstrating overarching themes in the data and lower-level codes representing constituent themes with a narrower focus.
A guideline for the main procedural steps for conducting template analysis is outlined below.
- Familiarization with the Data : Read (and reread) the dataset in full. Engage, reflect, and take notes on data that may be relevant to the research question.
- Preliminary Coding : Identify initial codes using guidance from the a priori codes, identified before the analysis as likely to be beneficial and relevant to the analysis.
- Organize Themes : Organize themes into meaningful clusters. Consider the relationships between the themes both within and between clusters.
- Produce an Initial Template : Develop an initial template. This may be based on a subset of the data.
- Apply and Develop the Template : Apply the initial template to further data and make any necessary modifications. Refinements of the template may include adding themes, removing themes, or changing the scope/title of themes.
- Finalize Template : Finalize the template, then apply it to the entire dataset.
Frame analysis
Frame analysis is a comparative form of thematic analysis which systematically analyzes data using a matrix output.
Ritchie and Spencer (1994) developed this set of techniques to analyze qualitative data in applied policy research. Frame analysis aims to generate theory from data.
Frame analysis encourages researchers to organize and manage their data using summarization.
This results in a flexible and unique matrix output, in which individual participants (or cases) are represented by rows and themes are represented by columns.
Each intersecting cell is used to summarize findings relating to the corresponding participant and theme.
Frame analysis has five distinct phases which are interrelated, forming a methodical and rigorous framework.
- Familiarization with the Data : Familiarize yourself with all the transcripts. Immerse yourself in the details of each transcript and start to note recurring themes.
- Develop a Theoretical Framework : Identify recurrent/ important themes and add them to a chart. Provide a framework/ structure for the analysis.
- Indexing : Apply the framework systematically to the entire study data.
- Summarize Data in Analytical Framework : Reduce the data into brief summaries of participants’ accounts.
- Mapping and Interpretation : Compare themes and subthemes and check against the original transcripts. Group the data into categories and provide an explanation for them.
Preventing Bias in Qualitative Research
To evaluate qualitative studies, the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist for qualitative studies can be used to ensure all aspects of a study have been considered (CASP, 2018).
The quality of research can be enhanced and assessed using criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, co-coding, and member-checking.
Co-coding
Relying on only one researcher to interpret rich and complex data may risk key insights and alternative viewpoints being missed. Therefore, coding is often performed by multiple researchers.
A common strategy must be defined at the beginning of the coding process (Busetto et al., 2020). This includes establishing a useful coding list and finding a common definition of individual codes.
Transcripts are initially coded independently by researchers and then compared and consolidated to minimize error or bias and to bring confirmation of findings.
Member checking
Member checking (or respondent validation) involves checking back with participants to see if the research resonates with their experiences (Russell & Gregory, 2003).
Data can be returned to participants after data collection or when results are first available. For example, participants may be provided with their interview transcript and asked to verify whether this is a complete and accurate representation of their views.
Participants may then clarify or elaborate on their responses to ensure they align with their views (Shenton, 2004).
This feedback becomes part of data collection and ensures accurate descriptions/ interpretations of phenomena (Mays & Pope, 2000).
Reflexivity in qualitative research
Reflexivity typically involves examining your own judgments, practices, and belief systems during data collection and analysis. It aims to identify any personal beliefs which may affect the research.
Reflexivity is essential in qualitative research to ensure methodological transparency and complete reporting. This enables readers to understand how the interaction between the researcher and participant shapes the data.
Depending on the research question and population being researched, factors that need to be considered include the experience of the researcher, how the contact was established and maintained, age, gender, and ethnicity.
These details are important because, in qualitative research, the researcher is a dynamic part of the research process and actively influences the outcome of the research (Boeije, 2014).
Reflexivity Example
Who you are and your characteristics influence how you collect and analyze data. Here is an example of a reflexivity statement for research on smoking. I am a 30-year-old white female from a middle-class background. I live in the southwest of England and have been educated to master’s level. I have been involved in two research projects on oral health. I have never smoked, but I have witnessed how smoking can cause ill health from my volunteering in a smoking cessation clinic. My research aspirations are to help to develop interventions to help smokers quit.
Establishing Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
Trustworthiness is a concept used to assess the quality and rigor of qualitative research. Four criteria are used to assess a study’s trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
1. Credibility in Qualitative Research
Credibility refers to how accurately the results represent the reality and viewpoints of the participants.
To establish credibility in research, participants’ views and the researcher’s representation of their views need to align (Tobin & Begley, 2004).
To increase the credibility of findings, researchers may use data source triangulation, investigator triangulation, peer debriefing, or member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
2. Transferability in Qualitative Research
Transferability refers to how generalizable the findings are: whether the findings may be applied to another context, setting, or group (Tobin & Begley, 2004).
Transferability can be enhanced by giving thorough and in-depth descriptions of the research setting, sample, and methods (Nowell et al., 2017).
3. Dependability in Qualitative Research
Dependability is the extent to which the study could be replicated under similar conditions and the findings would be consistent.
Researchers can establish dependability using methods such as audit trails so readers can see the research process is logical and traceable (Koch, 1994).
4. Confirmability in Qualitative Research
Confirmability is concerned with establishing that there is a clear link between the researcher’s interpretations/ findings and the data.
Researchers can achieve confirmability by demonstrating how conclusions and interpretations were arrived at (Nowell et al., 2017).
This enables readers to understand the reasoning behind the decisions made.
Audit Trails in Qualitative Research
An audit trail provides evidence of the decisions made by the researcher regarding theory, research design, and data collection, as well as the steps they have chosen to manage, analyze, and report data.
The researcher must provide a clear rationale to demonstrate how conclusions were reached in their study.
A clear description of the research path must be provided to enable readers to trace through the researcher’s logic (Halpren, 1983).
Researchers should maintain records of the raw data, field notes, transcripts, and a reflective journal in order to provide a clear audit trail.
Discovery of unexpected data
Open-ended questions in qualitative research mean the researcher can probe an interview topic and enable the participant to elaborate on responses in an unrestricted manner.
This allows unexpected data to emerge, which can lead to further research into that topic.
The exploratory nature of qualitative research helps generate hypotheses that can be tested quantitatively (Busetto et al., 2020).
Flexibility
Data collection and analysis can be modified and adapted to take the research in a different direction if new ideas or patterns emerge in the data.
This enables researchers to investigate new opportunities while firmly maintaining their research goals.
Naturalistic settings
The behaviors of participants are recorded in real-world settings. Studies that use real-world settings have high ecological validity since participants behave more authentically.
Limitations
Time-consuming .
Qualitative research results in large amounts of data which often need to be transcribed and analyzed manually.
Even when software is used, transcription can be inaccurate, and using software for analysis can result in many codes which need to be condensed into themes.
Subjectivity
The researcher has an integral role in collecting and interpreting qualitative data. Therefore, the conclusions reached are from their perspective and experience.
Consequently, interpretations of data from another researcher may vary greatly.
Limited generalizability
The aim of qualitative research is to provide a detailed, contextualized understanding of an aspect of the human experience from a relatively small sample size.
Despite rigorous analysis procedures, conclusions drawn cannot be generalized to the wider population since data may be biased or unrepresentative.
Therefore, results are only applicable to a small group of the population.
While individual qualitative studies are often limited in their generalizability due to factors such as sample size and context, metasynthesis enables researchers to synthesize findings from multiple studies, potentially leading to more generalizable conclusions.
By integrating findings from studies conducted in diverse settings and with different populations, metasynthesis can provide broader insights into the phenomenon of interest.
Extraneous variables
Qualitative research is often conducted in real-world settings. This may cause results to be unreliable since extraneous variables may affect the data, for example:
- Situational variables : different environmental conditions may influence participants’ behavior in a study. The random variation in factors (such as noise or lighting) may be difficult to control in real-world settings.
- Participant characteristics : this includes any characteristics that may influence how a participant answers/ behaves in a study. This may include a participant’s mood, gender, age, ethnicity, sexual identity, IQ, etc.
- Experimenter effect : experimenter effect refers to how a researcher’s unintentional influence can change the outcome of a study. This occurs when (i) their interactions with participants unintentionally change participants’ behaviors or (ii) due to errors in observation, interpretation, or analysis.
What sample size should qualitative research be?
The sample size for qualitative studies has been recommended to include a minimum of 12 participants to reach data saturation (Braun, 2013).
Are surveys qualitative or quantitative?
Surveys can be used to gather information from a sample qualitatively or quantitatively. Qualitative surveys use open-ended questions to gather detailed information from a large sample using free text responses.
The use of open-ended questions allows for unrestricted responses where participants use their own words, enabling the collection of more in-depth information than closed-ended questions.
In contrast, quantitative surveys consist of closed-ended questions with multiple-choice answer options. Quantitative surveys are ideal to gather a statistical representation of a population.
What are the ethical considerations of qualitative research?
Before conducting a study, you must think about any risks that could occur and take steps to prevent them. Participant Protection : Researchers must protect participants from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend, or harm participants. Transparency : Researchers are obligated to clearly communicate how they will collect, store, analyze, use, and share the data. Confidentiality : You need to consider how to maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of participants’ data.
What is triangulation in qualitative research?
Triangulation refers to the use of several approaches in a study to comprehensively understand phenomena. This method helps to increase the validity and credibility of research findings.
Types of triangulation include method triangulation (using multiple methods to gather data); investigator triangulation (multiple researchers for collecting/ analyzing data), theory triangulation (comparing several theoretical perspectives to explain a phenomenon), and data source triangulation (using data from various times, locations, and people; Carter et al., 2014).
Why is qualitative research important?
Qualitative research allows researchers to describe and explain the social world. The exploratory nature of qualitative research helps to generate hypotheses that can then be tested quantitatively.
In qualitative research, participants are able to express their thoughts, experiences, and feelings without constraint.
Additionally, researchers are able to follow up on participants’ answers in real-time, generating valuable discussion around a topic. This enables researchers to gain a nuanced understanding of phenomena which is difficult to attain using quantitative methods.
What is coding data in qualitative research?
Coding data is a qualitative data analysis strategy in which a section of text is assigned with a label that describes its content.
These labels may be words or phrases which represent important (and recurring) patterns in the data.
This process enables researchers to identify related content across the dataset. Codes can then be used to group similar types of data to generate themes.
What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?
Qualitative research involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data in order to understand experiences and meanings from the participant’s perspective.
This can provide rich, in-depth insights on complicated phenomena. Qualitative data may be collected using interviews, focus groups, or observations.
In contrast, quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numerical data to measure the frequency, magnitude, or relationships of variables. This can provide objective and reliable evidence that can be generalized to the wider population.
Quantitative data may be collected using closed-ended questionnaires or experiments.
What is trustworthiness in qualitative research?
Trustworthiness is a concept used to assess the quality and rigor of qualitative research. Four criteria are used to assess a study’s trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Credibility refers to how accurately the results represent the reality and viewpoints of the participants. Transferability refers to whether the findings may be applied to another context, setting, or group.
Dependability is the extent to which the findings are consistent and reliable. Confirmability refers to the objectivity of findings (not influenced by the bias or assumptions of researchers).
What is data saturation in qualitative research?
Data saturation is a methodological principle used to guide the sample size of a qualitative research study.
Data saturation is proposed as a necessary methodological component in qualitative research (Saunders et al., 2018) as it is a vital criterion for discontinuing data collection and/or analysis.
The intention of data saturation is to find “no new data, no new themes, no new coding, and ability to replicate the study” (Guest et al., 2006). Therefore, enough data has been gathered to make conclusions.
Why is sampling in qualitative research important?
In quantitative research, large sample sizes are used to provide statistically significant quantitative estimates.
This is because quantitative research aims to provide generalizable conclusions that represent populations.
However, the aim of sampling in qualitative research is to gather data that will help the researcher understand the depth, complexity, variation, or context of a phenomenon. The small sample sizes in qualitative studies support the depth of case-oriented analysis.
What is narrative analysis?
Narrative analysis is a qualitative research method used to understand how individuals create stories from their personal experiences.
There is an emphasis on understanding the context in which a narrative is constructed, recognizing the influence of historical, cultural, and social factors on storytelling.
Researchers can use different methods together to explore a research question.
Some narrative researchers focus on the content of what is said, using thematic narrative analysis, while others focus on the structure, such as holistic-form or categorical-form structural narrative analysis. Others focus on how the narrative is produced and performed.
Boeije, H. (2014). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology , 3 (2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2014). The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 12 (2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224
Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological research and practice , 2 (1), 14-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology nursing forum , 41 (5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research. https://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Qualitative-Studies-Checklist/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf Accessed: March 15 2023
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Successful Qualitative Research , 1-400.
Denny, E., & Weckesser, A. (2022). How to do qualitative research?: Qualitative research methods. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology , 129 (7), 1166-1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17150
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory. The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206-1
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18 (1), 59-82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
Halpren, E. S. (1983). Auditing naturalistic inquiries: The development and application of a model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & de Lacey, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction , 31 (3), 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334
Koch, T. (1994). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 976–986. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2648.1994.tb01177.x
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50–52.
Minichiello, V. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Longman Cheshire.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods. Manual Therapy , 17 (5), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.004
Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage
Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies: Ethnography. BMJ , 337 (aug07 3). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1020
Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6 (2), 36–40.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & quantity , 52 (4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Scarduzio, J. A. (2017). Emic approach to qualitative research. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–2 . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0082
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice / Margrit Schreier.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 , 63–75.
Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research , 17 (10), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031
Tenny, S., Brannan, J. M., & Brannan, G. D. (2022). Qualitative Study. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388–396. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03207.x
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences , 15 (3), 398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Wood L. A., Kroger R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Sage.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European journal of education , 48 (2), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014
![Qualitative Research: Characteristics, Design, Methods & Examples 1 Print Friendly, PDF & Email](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/three-icons-with-text-light-blue.jpg)
![what is qualitative research design U.S. flag](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/uswds/img/favicons/favicon-57.png)
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
![what is qualitative research design Logo of springeropen](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/logo-springeropen.png)
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
Patrik aspers.
1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
2 Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
3 Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.
If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.
To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).
Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).
Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.
The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.
Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:
While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).
According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.
The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.
Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research
Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.
Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).
If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.
This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)
Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.
We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.
Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.
The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).
In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.
In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.
In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.
In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.
In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .
As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.
Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.
The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.
Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?
In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.
Qualitative and Quantitative
This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.
The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:
Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)
Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).
Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.
Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).
There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).
We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.
Qualitative Research
This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).
Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?
Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?
In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.
We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.
Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.
Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).
We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:
Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)
But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.
It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.
Grounded Theory
Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).
Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.
Defining Qualitative Research
In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.
Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.
Distinctions
We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?
Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.
In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.
Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.
Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.
Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.
By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.
Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.
Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).
Improved Understanding
While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.
Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.
It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.
Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.
We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.
Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.
We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.
We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.
Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.
Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.
Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.
A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.
To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.
Acknowledgements
Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.
Biographies
is professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, Uppsala University and Universität St. Gallen. His main focus is economic sociology, and in particular, markets. He has published numerous articles and books, including Orderly Fashion (Princeton University Press 2010), Markets (Polity Press 2011) and Re-Imagining Economic Sociology (edited with N. Dodd, Oxford University Press 2015). His book Ethnographic Methods (in Swedish) has already gone through several editions.
is associate professor of sociology at the Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger. His research has been published in journals such as Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Theory, Teaching Sociology, and Music and Arts in Action. As an ethnographer he is working on a book on he social world of big-wave surfing.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .
Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .
- Åkerström M. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):10–18. [ Google Scholar ]
- Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Alvesson M, Kärreman D. Qualitative research and theory development . Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
- Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
- Atkinson P. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (3):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
- Becker HS. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
- Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Social Problems. 1966; 14 (3):239–247. [ Google Scholar ]
- Becker HS. Sociological work. Method and substance. New Brunswick: Transaction Books; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
- Becker HS. The epistemology of qualitative research. In: Richard J, Anne C, Shweder RA, editors. Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
- Becker HS. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
- Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
- Becker H, Geer B, Hughes E, Strauss A. Boys in White, student culture in medical school. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
- Berezin M. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):141–151. [ Google Scholar ]
- Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
- Biernacki R. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
- Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
- Brady H, Collier D, Seawright J. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In: Henry B, David C, editors. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 2004. pp. 3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
- Brown AP. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research. 2010; 10 (2):229–248. [ Google Scholar ]
- Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
- Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
- Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
- Davidsson D. The myth of the subjective. In: Davidsson D, editor. Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. pp. 39–52. [ Google Scholar ]
- Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
- Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2003. pp. 1–45. [ Google Scholar ]
- Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2005. pp. 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
- Emerson RM, editor. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
- Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
- Esterberg KG. Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
- Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
- Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
- Fine GA, Hancock BH. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research. 2017; 17 (2):260–268. [ Google Scholar ]
- Fine GA, Hallett T. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. 2014; 3 (2):188–203. [ Google Scholar ]
- Flick U. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information. 2002; 41 (1):5–24. [ Google Scholar ]
- Flick U. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
- Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. 5. London: Edward Arnold; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
- Franzosi R. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society. 2010; 39 (6):593–629. [ Google Scholar ]
- Franzosi R. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology. 2016; 19 (1):137–141. [ Google Scholar ]
- Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
- Gans H. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1999; 28 (5):540–548. [ Google Scholar ]
- Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
- Gilbert N. Researching social life. 3. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
- Glaeser A. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 :207–241. [ Google Scholar ]
- Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
- Goertz G, Mahoney J. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
- Goffman E. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1989; 18 (2):123–132. [ Google Scholar ]
- Goodwin J, Horowitz R. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2002; 25 (1):33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
- Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
- Hammersley M. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2007; 30 (3):287–305. [ Google Scholar ]
- Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Hammersley M. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education. 2018; 13 (1):1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
- Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography . Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
- Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
- Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
- Hempel CG. Philosophy of the natural sciences. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
- Hood JC. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology. 2006; 34 (3):207–223. [ Google Scholar ]
- James W. Pragmatism. New York: Meredian Books; 1907. [ Google Scholar ]
- Jovanović G. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences. 2011; 24 (2):1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
- Kalof L, Dan A, Dietz T. Essentials of social research. London: Open University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
- Katz J. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research. 2015; 44 (1):108–144. [ Google Scholar ]
- King G, Keohane RO, Sidney S, Verba S. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. Designing social inquiry. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lamont M. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In: Lamont M, White P, editors. Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2004. pp. 91–95. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lamont M, Swidler A. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):153–171. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lazarsfeld P, Barton A. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In: Kendall P, editor. The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld. New York: Columbia University Press; 1982. pp. 239–285. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; 10.1177/0049124114554458.
- Lofland J, Lofland L. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lofland J, Snow DA, Anderson L, Lofland LH. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 4. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
- Long AF, Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2004; 7 (2):181–196. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lundberg G. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1951. [ Google Scholar ]
- Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge; 1922. [ Google Scholar ]
- Manicas P. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
- Marchel C, Owens S. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology. 2007; 10 (4):301–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
- McIntyre LJ. Need to know. Social science research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
- Merton RK, Barber E. The travels and adventures of serendipity . A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
- Mannay D, Morgan M. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘ Qualitative Research. 2015; 15 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
- Neuman LW. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
- Ragin CC. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
- Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
- Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
- Schütz A. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
- Seiffert H. Einführung in die Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Franke; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
- Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. 2. London: SAGE Publications; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
- Silverman D. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
- Silverman D. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):48–55. [ Google Scholar ]
- Small ML. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography. 2009; 10 (1):5–38. [ Google Scholar ]
- Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
- Snow DA, Anderson L. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
- Snow DA, Morrill C. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1995; 24 (3):341–349. [ Google Scholar ]
- Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. 14. Chicago: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
- Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
- Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
- Swedberg R. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February. 1990; 3 (1):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
- Timmermans S, Tavory I. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (3):167–186. [ Google Scholar ]
- Trier-Bieniek A. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (6):630–644. [ Google Scholar ]
- Valsiner J. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information. 2000; 39 (1):99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
- Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples
What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples
Published on June 7, 2021 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023 by Pritha Bhandari.
A research design is a strategy for answering your research question using empirical data. Creating a research design means making decisions about:
- Your overall research objectives and approach
- Whether you’ll rely on primary research or secondary research
- Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
- Your data collection methods
- The procedures you’ll follow to collect data
- Your data analysis methods
A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research objectives and that you use the right kind of analysis for your data.
Table of contents
Step 1: consider your aims and approach, step 2: choose a type of research design, step 3: identify your population and sampling method, step 4: choose your data collection methods, step 5: plan your data collection procedures, step 6: decide on your data analysis strategies, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research design.
- Introduction
Before you can start designing your research, you should already have a clear idea of the research question you want to investigate.
There are many different ways you could go about answering this question. Your research design choices should be driven by your aims and priorities—start by thinking carefully about what you want to achieve.
The first choice you need to make is whether you’ll take a qualitative or quantitative approach.
Qualitative approach | Quantitative approach |
---|---|
and describe frequencies, averages, and correlations about relationships between variables |
Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible and inductive , allowing you to adjust your approach based on what you find throughout the research process.
Quantitative research designs tend to be more fixed and deductive , with variables and hypotheses clearly defined in advance of data collection.
It’s also possible to use a mixed-methods design that integrates aspects of both approaches. By combining qualitative and quantitative insights, you can gain a more complete picture of the problem you’re studying and strengthen the credibility of your conclusions.
Practical and ethical considerations when designing research
As well as scientific considerations, you need to think practically when designing your research. If your research involves people or animals, you also need to consider research ethics .
- How much time do you have to collect data and write up the research?
- Will you be able to gain access to the data you need (e.g., by travelling to a specific location or contacting specific people)?
- Do you have the necessary research skills (e.g., statistical analysis or interview techniques)?
- Will you need ethical approval ?
At each stage of the research design process, make sure that your choices are practically feasible.
Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services
Discover proofreading & editing
Within both qualitative and quantitative approaches, there are several types of research design to choose from. Each type provides a framework for the overall shape of your research.
Types of quantitative research designs
Quantitative designs can be split into four main types.
- Experimental and quasi-experimental designs allow you to test cause-and-effect relationships
- Descriptive and correlational designs allow you to measure variables and describe relationships between them.
Type of design | Purpose and characteristics |
---|---|
Experimental | relationships effect on a |
Quasi-experimental | ) |
Correlational | |
Descriptive |
With descriptive and correlational designs, you can get a clear picture of characteristics, trends and relationships as they exist in the real world. However, you can’t draw conclusions about cause and effect (because correlation doesn’t imply causation ).
Experiments are the strongest way to test cause-and-effect relationships without the risk of other variables influencing the results. However, their controlled conditions may not always reflect how things work in the real world. They’re often also more difficult and expensive to implement.
Types of qualitative research designs
Qualitative designs are less strictly defined. This approach is about gaining a rich, detailed understanding of a specific context or phenomenon, and you can often be more creative and flexible in designing your research.
The table below shows some common types of qualitative design. They often have similar approaches in terms of data collection, but focus on different aspects when analyzing the data.
Type of design | Purpose and characteristics |
---|---|
Grounded theory | |
Phenomenology |
Your research design should clearly define who or what your research will focus on, and how you’ll go about choosing your participants or subjects.
In research, a population is the entire group that you want to draw conclusions about, while a sample is the smaller group of individuals you’ll actually collect data from.
Defining the population
A population can be made up of anything you want to study—plants, animals, organizations, texts, countries, etc. In the social sciences, it most often refers to a group of people.
For example, will you focus on people from a specific demographic, region or background? Are you interested in people with a certain job or medical condition, or users of a particular product?
The more precisely you define your population, the easier it will be to gather a representative sample.
- Sampling methods
Even with a narrowly defined population, it’s rarely possible to collect data from every individual. Instead, you’ll collect data from a sample.
To select a sample, there are two main approaches: probability sampling and non-probability sampling . The sampling method you use affects how confidently you can generalize your results to the population as a whole.
Probability sampling | Non-probability sampling |
---|---|
Probability sampling is the most statistically valid option, but it’s often difficult to achieve unless you’re dealing with a very small and accessible population.
For practical reasons, many studies use non-probability sampling, but it’s important to be aware of the limitations and carefully consider potential biases. You should always make an effort to gather a sample that’s as representative as possible of the population.
Case selection in qualitative research
In some types of qualitative designs, sampling may not be relevant.
For example, in an ethnography or a case study , your aim is to deeply understand a specific context, not to generalize to a population. Instead of sampling, you may simply aim to collect as much data as possible about the context you are studying.
In these types of design, you still have to carefully consider your choice of case or community. You should have a clear rationale for why this particular case is suitable for answering your research question .
For example, you might choose a case study that reveals an unusual or neglected aspect of your research problem, or you might choose several very similar or very different cases in order to compare them.
Data collection methods are ways of directly measuring variables and gathering information. They allow you to gain first-hand knowledge and original insights into your research problem.
You can choose just one data collection method, or use several methods in the same study.
Survey methods
Surveys allow you to collect data about opinions, behaviors, experiences, and characteristics by asking people directly. There are two main survey methods to choose from: questionnaires and interviews .
Questionnaires | Interviews |
---|---|
) |
Observation methods
Observational studies allow you to collect data unobtrusively, observing characteristics, behaviors or social interactions without relying on self-reporting.
Observations may be conducted in real time, taking notes as you observe, or you might make audiovisual recordings for later analysis. They can be qualitative or quantitative.
Quantitative observation | |
---|---|
Other methods of data collection
There are many other ways you might collect data depending on your field and topic.
Field | Examples of data collection methods |
---|---|
Media & communication | Collecting a sample of texts (e.g., speeches, articles, or social media posts) for data on cultural norms and narratives |
Psychology | Using technologies like neuroimaging, eye-tracking, or computer-based tasks to collect data on things like attention, emotional response, or reaction time |
Education | Using tests or assignments to collect data on knowledge and skills |
Physical sciences | Using scientific instruments to collect data on things like weight, blood pressure, or chemical composition |
If you’re not sure which methods will work best for your research design, try reading some papers in your field to see what kinds of data collection methods they used.
Secondary data
If you don’t have the time or resources to collect data from the population you’re interested in, you can also choose to use secondary data that other researchers already collected—for example, datasets from government surveys or previous studies on your topic.
With this raw data, you can do your own analysis to answer new research questions that weren’t addressed by the original study.
Using secondary data can expand the scope of your research, as you may be able to access much larger and more varied samples than you could collect yourself.
However, it also means you don’t have any control over which variables to measure or how to measure them, so the conclusions you can draw may be limited.
![](http://ustaliy.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://www.scribbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dissertation-proofreading-service.png)
As well as deciding on your methods, you need to plan exactly how you’ll use these methods to collect data that’s consistent, accurate, and unbiased.
Planning systematic procedures is especially important in quantitative research, where you need to precisely define your variables and ensure your measurements are high in reliability and validity.
Operationalization
Some variables, like height or age, are easily measured. But often you’ll be dealing with more abstract concepts, like satisfaction, anxiety, or competence. Operationalization means turning these fuzzy ideas into measurable indicators.
If you’re using observations , which events or actions will you count?
If you’re using surveys , which questions will you ask and what range of responses will be offered?
You may also choose to use or adapt existing materials designed to measure the concept you’re interested in—for example, questionnaires or inventories whose reliability and validity has already been established.
Reliability and validity
Reliability means your results can be consistently reproduced, while validity means that you’re actually measuring the concept you’re interested in.
Reliability | Validity |
---|---|
) ) |
For valid and reliable results, your measurement materials should be thoroughly researched and carefully designed. Plan your procedures to make sure you carry out the same steps in the same way for each participant.
If you’re developing a new questionnaire or other instrument to measure a specific concept, running a pilot study allows you to check its validity and reliability in advance.
Sampling procedures
As well as choosing an appropriate sampling method , you need a concrete plan for how you’ll actually contact and recruit your selected sample.
That means making decisions about things like:
- How many participants do you need for an adequate sample size?
- What inclusion and exclusion criteria will you use to identify eligible participants?
- How will you contact your sample—by mail, online, by phone, or in person?
If you’re using a probability sampling method , it’s important that everyone who is randomly selected actually participates in the study. How will you ensure a high response rate?
If you’re using a non-probability method , how will you avoid research bias and ensure a representative sample?
Data management
It’s also important to create a data management plan for organizing and storing your data.
Will you need to transcribe interviews or perform data entry for observations? You should anonymize and safeguard any sensitive data, and make sure it’s backed up regularly.
Keeping your data well-organized will save time when it comes to analyzing it. It can also help other researchers validate and add to your findings (high replicability ).
On its own, raw data can’t answer your research question. The last step of designing your research is planning how you’ll analyze the data.
Quantitative data analysis
In quantitative research, you’ll most likely use some form of statistical analysis . With statistics, you can summarize your sample data, make estimates, and test hypotheses.
Using descriptive statistics , you can summarize your sample data in terms of:
- The distribution of the data (e.g., the frequency of each score on a test)
- The central tendency of the data (e.g., the mean to describe the average score)
- The variability of the data (e.g., the standard deviation to describe how spread out the scores are)
The specific calculations you can do depend on the level of measurement of your variables.
Using inferential statistics , you can:
- Make estimates about the population based on your sample data.
- Test hypotheses about a relationship between variables.
Regression and correlation tests look for associations between two or more variables, while comparison tests (such as t tests and ANOVAs ) look for differences in the outcomes of different groups.
Your choice of statistical test depends on various aspects of your research design, including the types of variables you’re dealing with and the distribution of your data.
Qualitative data analysis
In qualitative research, your data will usually be very dense with information and ideas. Instead of summing it up in numbers, you’ll need to comb through the data in detail, interpret its meanings, identify patterns, and extract the parts that are most relevant to your research question.
Two of the most common approaches to doing this are thematic analysis and discourse analysis .
Approach | Characteristics |
---|---|
Thematic analysis | |
Discourse analysis |
There are many other ways of analyzing qualitative data depending on the aims of your research. To get a sense of potential approaches, try reading some qualitative research papers in your field.
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Simple random sampling
- Stratified sampling
- Cluster sampling
- Likert scales
- Reproducibility
Statistics
- Null hypothesis
- Statistical power
- Probability distribution
- Effect size
- Poisson distribution
Research bias
- Optimism bias
- Cognitive bias
- Implicit bias
- Hawthorne effect
- Anchoring bias
- Explicit bias
A research design is a strategy for answering your research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.
A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.
Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:
- Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
- Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .
Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.
The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:
- Your research questions and/or hypotheses
- Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
- The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
- Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
- Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
- Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests or thematic analysis )
A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.
In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.
Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.
For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.
Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.
A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-design/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.
✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
- UConn Library
- Scientific Research and Communication
- Qualitative Research: What is it?
Scientific Research and Communication — Qualitative Research: What is it?
- Essential Resources
- The Scientific Method
- Types of Scientific Papers
- Organization of a Scientific Paper
- Peer Review & Academic Journals
- Primary and Secondary Sources
- Scientific Information Literacy
- Critical Reading Methods
- Scientific Writing Guidebooks
- Science Literature Reviews
- Searching Strategies for Science Databases
- Engineering Career Exploration
- Quantitative Research: What Is It?
- AI Tools for Research
- Avoiding Plagiarism
What is qualitative research?
"Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. [1] Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervene or introduce treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data."
"Qualitative research at its core, ask open-ended questions whose answers are not easily put into numbers such as ‘how’ and ‘why’. [2] Due to the open-ended nature of the research questions at hand, qualitative research design is often not linear in the same way quantitative design is. [2] One of the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to explain processes and patterns of human behavior that can be difficult to quantify. [3] Phenomena such as experiences, attitudes, and behaviors can be difficult to accurately capture quantitatively, whereas a qualitative approach allows participants themselves to explain how, why, or what they were thinking, feeling, and experiencing at a certain time or during an event of interest."
- Qualitative Study - Steven Tenny; Grace D. Brannan; Janelle M. Brannan; Nancy C. Sharts-Hopko. This article details what qualitative research is, and some of the methodologies used.
Examples of Qualitative Research
![what is qualitative research design Chart showing examples of qualitative and quantitative research for comparison](https://libapps.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/139843/images/qualitative-quantitative-chart.png)
- Quantitative vs Qualitative Chart Chart showing examples of quantitative vs. qualitative research.
EBooks on Qualitative Research Methodology
Physical Library Books
- << Previous: Engineering Career Exploration
- Next: Quantitative Research: What Is It? >>
- Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 3:23 PM
- URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/sciencecommunication
![what is qualitative research design Creative Commons](https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/customers/757/images/by-nc.png)
![what is qualitative research design IdeaScale Logo](https://ideascale.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ideascale-logo.png)
What is Qualitative Research? Definition, Types, Examples, Methods, and Best Practices
By Nick Jain
Published on: June 21, 2023
![qualitative-research-cover What is Qualitative Research](https://ideascale.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/qualitative-research-cover.jpg)
Table of Contents
What is Qualitative Research?
5 key types of qualitative research, examples of qualitative research, qualitative research methods: the top 4 techniques, qualitative research best practices.
Qualitative research is defined as an exploratory metho d that aims to understand complex phenomena, often within their natural settings, by examining subjective experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.
Unlike quantitative research , which focuses on numerical measurements and statistical analysis, qualitative research employs a range of data collection methods to gather detailed, non-numerical data that can provide in-depth insights into the research topic.
Here are the key characteristics of Qualitative Research:
- Subjectivity : Qualitative research acknowledges the subjective nature of human experiences and perceptions. It recognizes that individuals interpret and construct meaning based on their unique perspectives, cultural backgrounds, and social contexts. Researchers using qualitative methods aim to capture this subjectivity by engaging in detailed qualitative observations , interviews, and analyses that capture the nuances and complexities of human behavior.
- Contextualization : Qualitative research places a strong emphasis on the context in which social phenomena occur. It seeks to understand the interconnectedness between individuals, their environments, and the broader social structures that shape their experiences. Researchers delve into the specific settings and circumstances that influence the behavior and attitudes of participants, aiming to unravel the intricate relationships between different variables.
- Flexibility : Qualitative research is characterized by its flexibility and adaptability. Researchers have the freedom to modify their research design and methods during the course of the study based on emerging insights and new directions. This flexibility allows for iterative and exploratory research, enabling researchers to delve deeper into the subject matter and capture unexpected findings.
- Interpretation and meaning-making : Qualitative research recognizes that meaning is not fixed but constructed through social interactions and interpretations. Researchers engage in a process of interpretation and meaning-making to make sense of the data collected. This interpretive approach allows researchers to explore multiple perspectives, cultural influences, and social constructions that shape participants’ experiences and behaviors.
- Richness and depth : One of the key strengths of qualitative research is its ability to generate rich and in-depth data. Through methods such as interviews, focus groups , and participant observation, researchers can gather detailed narratives and descriptions that go beyond surface-level information. This depth of data enables a comprehensive understanding of the research topic, including the underlying motivations, emotions, and social dynamics at play.
- Inductive reasoning : Qualitative research often employs an inductive reasoning approach. Instead of starting with preconceived hypotheses or theories, researchers allow patterns and themes to emerge from the data. They engage in iterative cycles of data collection and analysis to develop theories or conceptual frameworks grounded in the empirical evidence gathered. This inductive process allows for new insights and discoveries that may challenge existing theories or offer alternative explanations.
- Naturalistic setting : Qualitative research frequently takes place in naturalistic settings, where participants are observed and studied in their everyday environments. This setting enhances the ecological validity of the research, as it allows researchers to capture authentic behaviors, interactions, and experiences. By observing individuals in their natural contexts, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of how social phenomena unfold in real-world situations.
Learn more: What is Qualitative Observation?
![what is qualitative research design 5 Key Types of Qualitative Research](https://ideascale.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/qualitative-research-descriptive-1-600x491.jpg)
Here are the 5 key qualitative research types that are employed in studies:
1. Phenomenology : This type of research focuses on understanding the essence and meaning of a particular phenomenon or experience as perceived by individuals who have lived through it. It seeks to capture the subjective experiences and perspectives of participants.
2. Ethnography : Ethnographic research involves immersing oneself in a specific cultural or social group to observe and understand its practices, customs, beliefs, and values. Researchers spend extended periods of time within the community to gain a holistic view of its way of life.
3. Grounded Theory: Grounded theory aims to generate new theories or conceptual frameworks based on the analysis of data collected from interviews, observations, or documents. It involves systematically coding and categorizing data to identify patterns and develop theoretical explanations.
4. Case Study : In a case study, researchers conduct an in-depth examination of a single individual, group, or event to gain a detailed understanding of the subject of study. This approach allows for rich contextual information and can be particularly useful in exploring complex and unique cases.
5. Narrative Research: Narrative research focuses on analyzing the stories and personal narratives of individuals to gain insights into their experiences, identities, and sense-making processes. It emphasizes the power of storytelling in constructing meaning.
Example 1. A researcher conducting a phenomenological study might explore the lived experiences of individuals who have survived a natural disaster to understand the psychological and emotional impact of such events.
Example 2. An ethnographer might immerse themselves in a remote indigenous community to study their cultural practices, rituals, and social dynamics.
Example 3. A grounded theory study might investigate the coping mechanisms employed by cancer patients by conducting interviews and analyzing their experiences.
Example 4. A case study could involve examining a specific company’s organizational culture to understand its impact on employee performance and job satisfaction.
Example 5. A narrative research project might analyze the personal narratives of individuals who have experienced significant life transitions, such as migration or career changes, to understand the underlying meaning-making processes.
Learn more: What is Qualitative Market Research?
![what is qualitative research design Qualitative Research Methods: The Top 4 Techniques](https://ideascale.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/qualitative-research-descriptive-2-600x420.jpg)
Here are the best qualitative research methods that offer unique advantages in capturing rich data, facilitating in-depth analysis, and generating comprehensive findings:
1. In-Depth Interviews
One of the most widely used qualitative research techniques is in-depth interviews. This method involves conducting one-on-one interviews with participants to gather rich, detailed information about their experiences, perspectives, and opinions. In-depth interviews allow researchers to explore a participant’s thoughts, emotions, and motivations, providing deep insights into their behavior and decision-making processes. The flexibility of this method allows for the exploration of individual experiences in great detail, making it particularly suitable for sensitive topics or complex phenomena. Through careful probing and open-ended questioning, researchers can develop a comprehensive understanding of the participant’s worldview, uncovering hidden patterns, and generating new hypotheses.
2. Focus Groups
Focus group research involves the gathering of a small group of individuals (typically 6-10) who share common characteristics or experiences. This method encourages participants to engage in open discussions facilitated by a skilled moderator. Focus groups offer a dynamic environment that allows participants to interact, share their perspectives, and build upon each other’s ideas. This method is particularly useful for exploring group dynamics, collective opinions, and societal norms. By observing interactions within the group, researchers can gain valuable insights into how social influences shape individual attitudes and behaviors. Focus groups also allow for the exploration of diverse viewpoints, enabling researchers to identify patterns, contradictions, and shared experiences.
3. Observational Research
Observational research involves systematically observing and documenting participants’ behaviors and interactions within their natural environments. This method provides researchers with a direct window into real-life contexts, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social interactions, cultural practices, and behavioral patterns. Whether conducted through participant observation or unobtrusive observation, this method eliminates the potential biases associated with self-reporting, as participants’ actions speak louder than words. Observational research is especially valuable in studying nonverbal communication, contextual factors, and complex social systems. It can also provide insights into unarticulated behaviors or experiences that may be difficult to capture through other methods. However, careful planning, ethical considerations, and the need for prolonged engagement are crucial for conducting successful observational research .
4. Case Studies
Case studies involve an in-depth examination of a specific individual, group, organization, or event. Researchers collect data through various sources, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, to construct a holistic understanding of the case under investigation. This method allows for an exploration of complex social phenomena in their real-life context, uncovering rich, detailed insights that may not be accessible through other methods. Case studies provide an opportunity to examine unique or rare cases, delve into historical contexts, and generate context-specific knowledge. The findings from case studies are often highly detailed and context-bound, offering rich descriptions and contributing to theory development or refinement.
Qualitative research methods offer a range of powerful tools for exploring subjective experiences, meanings, and interpretations. In-depth interviews allow for the exploration of individual perspectives, while focus groups illuminate group dynamics. Observational research provides a direct view of participants’ behaviors, and case studies offer a holistic understanding of specific cases. By leveraging these qualitative methods, researchers can unveil deep insights, capture complex phenomena, and generate context-specific knowledge.
- Clear Research Objectives: Clearly define the qualitative research objectives, questions, or hypotheses that guide the study. This helps maintain focus and ensures that data collection and analysis are aligned with the research goals.
- Sampling Strategy: Select participants or cases that are relevant to the qualitative research questions and provide diverse perspectives. Purposeful sampling techniques, such as maximum variation or snowball sampling, can help ensure the inclusion of a wide range of experiences and viewpoints.
- Data Collection Rigor: Employ rigorous qualitative data collection techniques to ensure the accuracy, credibility, and depth of the findings. This may involve conducting multiple interviews or qualitative observations , using multiple sources of data, and taking detailed field notes.
- Ethical Considerations: Adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants. Protect the privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity of participants and ensure their voluntary participation throughout the qualitative research process.
- Data Analysis: Utilize systematic and rigorous approaches to analyze qualitative research data. This may involve coding, categorizing, and identifying patterns or themes within the data. Software tools like NVivo or ATLAS.ti can assist in organizing and analyzing large datasets.
- Triangulation: Enhance the validity and reliability of the findings by employing triangulation. Triangulation involves using multiple data sources, methods, or researchers to corroborate and validate the results, reducing the impact of researcher bias.
- Member Checking: Share the preliminary findings with participants to verify the accuracy and interpretation of their data. Member checking allows participants to provide feedback and corrections, enhancing the trustworthiness of the research.
- Reflexive Journaling: Maintain a reflexive journal throughout the research process to record reflections, insights, and decisions made during data collection and analysis. This journal can serve as a valuable tool for ensuring transparency and traceability in the research process.
- Clear and Transparent Reporting: Present the research findings in a clear, coherent, and transparent manner. Clearly describe the research methodology, data collection, and analysis processes. Provide rich and thick descriptions of the findings, supported by direct quotations and examples from the data.
By following these best practices, qualitative researchers can enhance the rigor, credibility, and trustworthiness of their research, leading to valuable and meaningful insights into the complex phenomena under investigation.
Learn more: What is Customer Experience (CX) Research?
Enhance Your Research
Collect feedback and conduct research with IdeaScale’s award-winning software
Elevate Research And Feedback With Your IdeaScale Community!
IdeaScale is an innovation management solution that inspires people to take action on their ideas. Your community’s ideas can change lives, your business and the world. Connect to the ideas that matter and start co-creating the future.
Copyright © 2024 IdeaScale
Privacy Overview
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
cookielawinfo-checbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
![what is qualitative research design Banner Image](https://libapps.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/362450/images/UTA-LOG0-Libguides.png)
Quantitative and Qualitative Research
- I NEED TO . . .
- What is Quantitative Research?
- What is Qualitative Research?
- Quantitative vs Qualitative
- Step 1: Accessing CINAHL
- Step 2: Create a Keyword Search
- Step 3: Create a Subject Heading Search
- Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Second Concept
- Step 5: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Quantitative Terms
- Step 6: Combining All Searches
- Step 7: Adding Limiters
- Step 8: Save Your Search!
- What Kind of Article is This?
- More Research Help This link opens in a new window
What is qualitative research?
Qualitative research is a process of naturalistic inquiry that seeks an in-depth understanding of social phenomena within their natural setting. It focuses on the "why" rather than the "what" of social phenomena and relies on the direct experiences of human beings as meaning-making agents in their every day lives. Rather than by logical and statistical procedures, qualitative researchers use multiple systems of inquiry for the study of human phenomena including biography, case study, historical analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology.
University of Utah College of Nursing, (n.d.). What is qualitative research? [Guide] Retrieved from https://nursing.utah.edu/research/qualitative-research/what-is-qualitative-research.php#what
The following video will explain the fundamentals of qualitative research.
- << Previous: What is Quantitative Research?
- Next: Quantitative vs Qualitative >>
- Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 2:09 PM
- URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/quantitative_and_qualitative_research
University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000
- Internet Privacy
- Accessibility
- Problems with a guide? Contact Us.
- Reviews / Why join our community?
- For companies
- Frequently asked questions
Qualitative Research
What is qualitative research.
Qualitative research is the methodology researchers use to gain deep contextual understandings of users via non-numerical means and direct observations. Researchers focus on smaller user samples—e.g., in interviews—to reveal data such as user attitudes, behaviors and hidden factors: insights which guide better designs.
“ There are also unknown unknowns, things we don’t know we don’t know.” — Donald Rumsfeld, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense
- Transcript loading…
See how you can use qualitative research to expose hidden truths about users and iteratively shape better products.
Qualitative Research Focuses on the “Why”
Qualitative research is a subset of user experience (UX) research and user research . By doing qualitative research, you aim to gain narrowly focused but rich information about why users feel and think the ways they do. Unlike its more statistics-oriented “counterpart”, quantitative research , qualitative research can help expose hidden truths about your users’ motivations, hopes, needs, pain points and more to help you keep your project’s focus on track throughout development. UX design professionals do qualitative research typically from early on in projects because—since the insights they reveal can alter product development dramatically—they can prevent costly design errors from arising later. Compare and contrast qualitative with quantitative research here:
Qualitative research
Quantitative Research
You Aim to Determine
The “why” – to get behind how users approach their problems in their world
The “what”, “where” & “when” of the users’ needs & problems – to help keep your project’s focus on track during development
Loosely structured (e.g., contextual inquiries) – to learn why users behave how they do & explore their opinions
Highly structured (e.g., surveys) – to gather data about what users do & find patterns in large user groups
Number of Representative Users
Often around 5
Ideally 30+
Level of Contact with Users
More direct & less remote (e.g., usability testing to examine users’ stress levels when they use your design)
Less direct & more remote (e.g., analytics)
Statistically
You need to take great care with handling non-numerical data (e.g., opinions), as your own opinions might influence findings
Reliable – given enough test users
Regarding care with opinions, it’s easy to be subjective about qualitative data, which isn’t as comprehensively analyzable as quantitative data. That’s why design teams also apply quantitative research methods, to reinforce the “why” with the “what”.
Qualitative Research Methods You Can Use to Get Behind Your Users
You have a choice of many methods to help gain the clearest insights into your users’ world – which you might want to complement with quantitative research methods. In iterative processes such as user-centered design , you/your design team would use quantitative research to spot design problems, discover the reasons for these with qualitative research, make changes and then test your improved design on users again. The best method/s to pick will depend on the stage of your project and your objectives. Here are some:
Diary studies – You ask users to document their activities, interactions, etc. over a defined period. This empowers users to deliver context-rich information. Although such studies can be subjective—since users will inevitably be influenced by in-the-moment human issues and their emotions—they’re helpful tools to access generally authentic information.
Structured – You ask users specific questions and analyze their responses with other users’.
Semi-structured – You have a more free-flowing conversation with users, but still follow a prepared script loosely.
Ethnographic – You interview users in their own environment to appreciate how they perform tasks and view aspects of tasks.
![what is qualitative research design How to Structure a User Interview](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/templates/thumbnails/template_2Xmx69MGQsm.png)
Usability testing
Moderated – In-person testing in, e.g., a lab.
Unmoderated – Users complete tests remotely: e.g., through a video call.
Guerrilla – “Down-the-hall”/“down-and-dirty” testing on a small group of random users or colleagues.
![what is qualitative research design How to Plan a Usability Test](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/templates/thumbnails/template_PJWKq1mbl.png)
User observation – You watch users get to grips with your design and note their actions, words and reactions as they attempt to perform tasks.
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-media.interaction-design.org/images/uploads/user-content/1445/UoxNElUrLZn7xku62Q0S2Db24IaFitC1ps7GMkF4.png)
Qualitative research can be more or less structured depending on the method.
Qualitative Research – How to Get Reliable Results
Some helpful points to remember are:
Participants – Select a number of test users carefully (typically around 5). Observe the finer points such as body language. Remember the difference between what they do and what they say they do.
Moderated vs. unmoderated – You can obtain the richest data from moderated studies, but these can involve considerable time and practice. You can usually conduct unmoderated studies more quickly and cheaply, but you should plan these carefully to ensure instructions are clear, etc.
Types of questions – You’ll learn far more by asking open-ended questions. Avoid leading users’ answers – ask about their experience during, say, the “search for deals” process rather than how easy it was. Try to frame questions so users respond honestly: i.e., so they don’t withhold grievances about their experience because they don’t want to seem impolite. Distorted feedback may also arise in guerrilla testing, as test users may be reluctant to sound negative or to discuss fine details if they lack time.
Location – Think how where users are might affect their performance and responses. If, for example, users’ tasks involve running or traveling on a train, select the appropriate method (e.g., diary studies for them to record aspects of their experience in the environment of a train carriage and the many factors impacting it).
Overall, no single research method can help you answer all your questions. Nevertheless, The Nielsen Norman Group advise that if you only conduct one kind of user research, you should pick qualitative usability testing, since a small sample size can yield many cost- and project-saving insights. Always treat users and their data ethically. Finally, remember the importance of complementing qualitative methods with quantitative ones: You gain insights from the former; you test those using the latter.
Learn More about Qualitative Research
Take our course on User Research to see how to get the most from qualitative research.
Read about the numerous considerations for qualitative research in this in-depth piece.
This blog discusses the importance of qualitative research , with tips.
Explore additional insights into qualitative research here .
Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift
What is the primary focus of qualitative research in user experience?
- To determine statistical significance of user behavior
- To explore user behaviors and motivations in-depth
- To quantify user interaction across multiple platforms
How many participants typically participate in qualitative research studies?
- About 5 to allow in-depth exploration
- Between 30 and 50 for moderate generalization
- Over 100 to guarantee statistical reliability
Which method do researchers often use in qualitative research to understand user experiences in their natural environment?
- Ethnographic interviews
- Laboratory experiments
- Online surveys
What characterizes the analysis of data in qualitative research?
- Simple tabulation of numeric responses
- Statistical analysis of large data sets
- Thematic analysis of detailed descriptions
What is a common challenge researchers face when they conduct qualitative research?
- The ability to obtain a large enough sample size for statistical analysis.
- The ability to remain objective and avoid bias in data interpretation.
- The ability to use advanced statistical tools to analyze data.
Better luck next time!
Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now
Congratulations! You did amazing
You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.
Check Your Inbox
We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .
Literature on Qualitative Research
Here’s the entire UX literature on Qualitative Research by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:
Learn more about Qualitative Research
Take a deep dive into Qualitative Research with our course User Research – Methods and Best Practices .
How do you plan to design a product or service that your users will love , if you don't know what they want in the first place? As a user experience designer, you shouldn't leave it to chance to design something outstanding; you should make the effort to understand your users and build on that knowledge from the outset. User research is the way to do this, and it can therefore be thought of as the largest part of user experience design .
In fact, user research is often the first step of a UX design process—after all, you cannot begin to design a product or service without first understanding what your users want! As you gain the skills required, and learn about the best practices in user research, you’ll get first-hand knowledge of your users and be able to design the optimal product—one that’s truly relevant for your users and, subsequently, outperforms your competitors’ .
This course will give you insights into the most essential qualitative research methods around and will teach you how to put them into practice in your design work. You’ll also have the opportunity to embark on three practical projects where you can apply what you’ve learned to carry out user research in the real world . You’ll learn details about how to plan user research projects and fit them into your own work processes in a way that maximizes the impact your research can have on your designs. On top of that, you’ll gain practice with different methods that will help you analyze the results of your research and communicate your findings to your clients and stakeholders—workshops, user journeys and personas, just to name a few!
By the end of the course, you’ll have not only a Course Certificate but also three case studies to add to your portfolio. And remember, a portfolio with engaging case studies is invaluable if you are looking to break into a career in UX design or user research!
We believe you should learn from the best, so we’ve gathered a team of experts to help teach this course alongside our own course instructors. That means you’ll meet a new instructor in each of the lessons on research methods who is an expert in their field—we hope you enjoy what they have in store for you!
All open-source articles on Qualitative Research
How to do a thematic analysis of user interviews.
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_131003_hero_5a316fa91deb37.78721774.jpg?tr=w-1000)
- 1.3k shares
- 4 years ago
How to Visualize Your Qualitative User Research Results for Maximum Impact
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_131004_hero_5a32b25514ca99.99475750.png?tr=w-1000)
- 3 years ago
Creating Personas from User Research Results
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_131006_hero_5a33d2739f0c47.42754650.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Best Practices for Qualitative User Research
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_130935_hero_594b80551a1779.22681546.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Card Sorting
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/books/covers/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed.png)
Contextual Interviews and How to Handle Them
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/56a88fcbe5918.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Understand the User’s Perspective through Research for Mobile UX
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_130577_hero_6478d08591ec73.67910501.png?tr=w-1000)
Ethnography
7 simple ways to get better results from ethnographic research.
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/582211e8a85ac.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Semi-structured qualitative studies
Pros and cons of conducting user interviews.
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_131000_hero_6278e84d9ac8a4.37342056.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Workshops to Establish Empathy and Understanding from User Research Results
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_130999_hero_59df55371ad4b1.43733549.jpg?tr=w-1000)
How to Moderate User Interviews
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_131002_hero_5a316ad4c30931.02477117.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Question Everything
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/582215b5c6fb3.jpg?tr=w-1000)
Adding Quality to Your Design Research with an SSQS Checklist
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/564357f8bbd5d.jpg?tr=w-1000)
- 8 years ago
Cognitive Maps in UX | IxDF
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://public-images.interaction-design.org/literature/articles/heros/article_131429_hero_6685277510ac25.06400243.png?tr=w-1000)
Open Access—Link to us!
We believe in Open Access and the democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.
If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !
Privacy Settings
Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.
Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.
Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.
Enhanced Functionality
Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.
Referral Program
We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.
Error Reporting
We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.
Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.
Analytics Storage
Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.
Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.
Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.
Advertising Storage
Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.
Personalization Storage
Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.
Advertising Personalization
Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.
Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.
Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.
Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.
Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.
LinkedIn Insights
Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.
LinkedIn CAPI
Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.
Google Ads Tag
Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.
Share Knowledge, Get Respect!
or copy link
Cite according to academic standards
Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.
New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!
![what is qualitative research design The Basics of User Experience Design](https://assets.interaction-design.org/build/assets/basics-of-ux-design-CVJjL1Qx.png)
Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.
In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!
![what is qualitative research design Forage](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/navy-wide-logo-2x-300x90-1-120x36.png)
Qualitative Research Definition
Qualitative research methods and examples, advantages and disadvantages of qualitative approaches, qualitative vs. quantitative research, showing qualitative research skills on resumes, what is qualitative research methods and examples.
![what is qualitative research design McKayla Girardin](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/headshot-48x48.jpeg)
- Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
![what is qualitative research design What Is Qualitative Research? Examples and methods](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/what-is-qualitative-research-1-1024x768.jpg)
Forage puts students first. Our blog articles are written independently by our editorial team. They have not been paid for or sponsored by our partners. See our full editorial guidelines .
Table of Contents
Qualitative research seeks to understand people’s experiences and perspectives by studying social organizations and human behavior. Data in qualitative studies focuses on people’s beliefs and emotional responses. Qualitative data is especially helpful when a company wants to know how customers feel about a product or service, such as in user experience (UX) design or marketing .
Researchers use qualitative approaches to “determine answers to research questions on human behavior and the cultural values that drive our thinking and behavior,” says Margaret J. King, director at The Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis in Philadelphia.
Data in qualitative research typically can’t be assessed mathematically — the data is not sets of numbers or quantifiable information. Rather, it’s collections of images, words, notes on behaviors, descriptions of emotions, and historical context. Data is collected through observations, interviews, surveys, focus groups, and secondary research.
However, a qualitative study needs a “clear research question at its base,” notes King, and the research needs to be “observed, categorized, compared, and evaluated (along a scale or by a typology chart) by reference to a baseline in order to determine an outcome with value as new and reliable information.”
![what is qualitative research design What's the difference: Data science vs. software engineering?](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/data-science-vs-software-engineering-150x105.jpg)
Quantium Data Analytics
Explore the power of data and its ability to power breakthrough possibilities for individuals, organisations and societies with this free job simulation from Quantium.
Avg. Time: 4 to 5 hours
Skills you’ll build: Data validation, data visualisation, data wrangling, programming, data analysis, commercial thinking, statistical testing, presentation skills
Who Uses Qualitative Research?
Researchers in social sciences and humanities often use qualitative research methods, especially in specific areas of study like anthropology, history, education, and sociology.
Qualitative methods are also applicable in business, technology , and marketing spaces. For example, product managers use qualitative research to understand how target audiences respond to their products. They may use focus groups to gain insights from potential customers on product prototypes and improvements or surveys from existing customers to understand what changes users want to see.
Other careers that may involve qualitative research include:
- Marketing analyst
- UX and UI analyst
- Market researcher
- Statistician
- Business analyst
- Data analyst
- Research assistant
- Claims investigator
![what is qualitative research design Working at Electronic Arts](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/electronic-arts-150x100.jpg)
Electronic Arts Product Management
Learn how product managers leverage qualitative and other types of research to build and improve products in this free job simulation from EA.
Avg. Time: 1 to 2 hours
Skills you’ll build: Critical thinking, problem solving, performance metrics, written communication, project planning
Good research begins with a question, and this question informs the approach used by qualitative researchers.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is an inductive approach to theory development. In many forms of research, you begin with a hypothesis and then test it to see if you’re correct. In grounded theory, though, you go in without any assumptions and rely on the data you collect to form theories. You start with an open question about a phenomenon you are studying and collect and analyze data until you can form a fully-fledged theory from the information.
Example: A company wants to improve its brand and marketing strategies. The company performs a grounded theory approach to solving this problem by conducting interviews and surveys with past, current, and prospective customers. The information gathered from these methods helps the company understand what type of branding and marketing their customer-base likes and dislikes, allowing the team to inductively craft a new brand and marketing strategy from the data.
Action Research
Action research is one part study and one part problem-solving . Through action research, analysts investigate a problem or weakness and develop practical solutions. The process of action research is cyclical —- researchers assess solutions for efficiency and effectiveness, and create further solutions to correct any issues found.
Example: A manager notices her employees struggle to cooperate on group projects. She carefully reviews how team members interact with each other and asks them all to respond to a survey about communication. Through the survey and study, she finds that guidelines for group projects are unclear. After changing the guidelines, she reviews her team again to see if there are any changes to their behavior.
>>MORE: Explore how action research helps consultants serve clients with Accenture’s Client Research and Problem Identification job simulation .
Phenomenological Research
Phenomenological research investigates a phenomenon in depth, looking at people’s experiences and understanding of the situation. This sort of study is primarily descriptive and seeks to broaden understanding around a specific incident and the people involved. Researchers in phenomenological studies must be careful to set aside any biases or assumptions because the information used should be entirely from the subjects themselves.
Example : A researcher wants to better understand the lived experience of college students with jobs. The purpose of this research is to gain insights into the pressures of college students who balance studying and working at the same time. The researcher conducts a series of interviews with several college students, learning about their past and current situations. Through the first few interviews, the researcher builds a relationship with the students. Later discussions are more targeted, with questions prompting the students to discuss their emotions surrounding both work and school and the difficulties and benefits arising from their situation. The researcher then analyzes these interviews, and identifies shared themes to contextualize the experiences of the students.
![what is qualitative research design](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/general-electric-150x100.jpg)
GE Aerospace Human Resources
Learn the research and conflict resolution skills necessary for a career in human resources in this free job simulation from GE.
Avg. Time: 3 to 4 hours
Skills you’ll build: Feedback giving, communication skills, empowering with insights, basics of lean, process mapping, continuous improvement tools, dataset handling in Excel
Ethnography
Ethnography is an immersive study of a particular culture or community. Through ethnographic research, analysts aim to learn about a group’s conventions, social dynamics, and cultural norms. Some researchers use active observation methods, finding ways to integrate themselves into the culture as much as possible. Others use passive observation, watching closely from the outside but not fully immersing themselves.
Example: A company hires an external researcher to learn what their company’s culture is actually like. The researcher studies the social dynamics of the employees and may even look at how these employees interact with clients and with each other outside of the office. The goal is to deliver a comprehensive report of the company’s culture and the social dynamics of its employees.
Case Studies
A case study is a type of in-depth analysis of a situation. Case studies can focus on an organization, belief system, event, person, or action. The goal of a case study is to understand the phenomenon and put it in a real-world context. Case studies are also commonly used in marketing and sales to highlight the benefits of a company’s products or services.
Example: A business performs a case study of its competitors’ strategies. This case study aims to show why the company should adopt a specific business strategy. The study looks at each competitor’s business structure, marketing campaigns, product offerings, and historical growth trends. Then, using this data on other businesses, the researcher can theorize how that strategy would benefit their company.
>>MORE: Learn how companies use case study interviews to assess candidates’ research and problem-solving skills.
Qualitative research methods are great for generating new ideas. The exploratory nature of qualitative research means uncovering unexpected information, which often leads to new theories and further research topics. Additionally, qualitative findings feel meaningful. These studies focus on people, emotions, and societies and may feel closer to their communities than quantitative research that relies on more mathematical and logical data.
However, qualitative research can be unreliable at times. It’s difficult to replicate qualitative studies since people’s opinions and emotions can change quickly. For example, a focus group has a lot of variables that can affect the outcome, and that same group, asked the same questions a year later, may have entirely different responses. The data collection can also be difficult and time-consuming with qualitative research. Ultimately, interviewing people, reviewing surveys, and understanding and explaining human emotions can be incredibly complex.
Find your career fit
See what career path is right for you with our free career quiz!
While qualitative research deals with data that isn’t easily manipulated by mathematics, quantitative research almost exclusively involves numbers and numerical data. Quantitative studies aim to find concrete details, like units of time, percentages, or statistics.
Besides the types of data used, a core difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the idea of control and replication.
“Qualitative is less subject to control (as in lab studies) and, therefore, less statistically measurable than quantitative approaches,” says King.
One person’s interview about a specific topic can have completely different responses than every other person’s interview since there are so many variables in qualitative research. On the other hand, quantitative studies can often be replicated. For instance, when testing the effects of a new medication, quantifiable data, like blood test results, can be repeated. Qualitative data, though, like how people feel about the medication, may differ from person to person and from moment to moment.
![what is qualitative research design J.P.Morgan bank corporation headquarters glass building concept. JP Morgan banking company symbol on front facade 3d illustration.](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/jpmorgan-internships-150x93.jpg)
JPMorgan Quantitative Research
Discover how bankers use quantitative methods to analyze businesses and industry trends with this free job simulation.
Avg. Time: 6 to 7 hours
Skills you’ll build: Programming, data analysis, Python, critical thinking, statistics, dynamic programming
You can show your experience with qualitative research on your resume in your skills or work experience sections and your cover letter .
- In your skills section , you can list types of qualitative research you are skilled at, like conducting interviews, performing grounded theory research, or crafting case studies.
- In your work or internship experience descriptions , you can highlight specific examples, like talking about a time you used action research to solve a complex issue at your last job.
- In your cover letter , you can discuss in-depth qualitative research projects you’ve completed. For instance, say you spent a summer conducting ethnographic research or a whole semester running focus groups to get feedback on a product. You can talk about these experiences in your cover letter and note how these skills make you a great fit for the job.
Grow your skills and explore your career options with Forage’s free job simulations .
Image credit: Canva
![what is qualitative research design McKayla Girardin](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/headshot-96x96.jpeg)
Related Posts
6 negotiation skills to level up your work life, how to build conflict resolution skills: case studies and examples, what is github uses and getting started, upskill with forage.
![what is qualitative research design Bloomberg logo through magnifying glass](https://www.theforage.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/working-at-bloomberg.jpg)
Top companies are hiring now!
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
- Open access
- Published: 27 February 2019
- Volume 42 , pages 139–160, ( 2019 )
Cite this article
You have full access to this open access article
- Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
- Ugo Corte 3
625k Accesses
338 Citations
24 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.
Similar content being viewed by others
![what is qualitative research design what is qualitative research design](https://media.springernature.com/w215h120/springer-static/image/art%3Aplaceholder%2Fimages/placeholder-figure-springernature.png)
What is Qualitative in Research
Unsettling definitions of qualitative research, what is “qualitative” in qualitative research why the answer does not matter but the question is important, explore related subjects.
- Artificial Intelligence
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.
To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).
Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).
Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.
The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.
Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:
While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).
According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.
The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.
Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research
Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.
Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).
If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.
This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)
Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.
We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.
Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.
The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).
In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.
In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.
In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.
In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.
In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .
As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.
Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.
The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.
Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?
In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.
Qualitative and Quantitative
This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.
The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:
Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)
Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).
Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.
Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).
There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).
We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.
Qualitative Research
This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).
Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?
Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?
In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.
We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.
Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.
Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).
We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:
Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)
But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.
It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.
Grounded Theory
Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).
Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.
Defining Qualitative Research
In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.
Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.
Distinctions
We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?
Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.
In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.
Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.
Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.
Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.
By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.
Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.
Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).
Improved Understanding
While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.
Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.
It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.
Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.
We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.
Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.
We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.
We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.
Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.
Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.
Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.
A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.
To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.
Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.
Google Scholar
Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.
Book Google Scholar
Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.
Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.
Article Google Scholar
Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.
Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.
Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.
Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.
Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.
Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.
Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.
Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.
Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2007. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30 (3): 287–305.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.
Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.
Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.
James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.
Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.
Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.
Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.
Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .
Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.
Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.
Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.
McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.
Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.
Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.
Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.
Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.
Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.
Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.
Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.
Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.
Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.
Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.
Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.
Download references
Acknowledgements
Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Patrik Aspers
Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .
Additional information
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
Download citation
Published : 27 February 2019
Issue Date : 01 June 2019
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Qualitative research
- Epistemology
- Philosophy of science
- Phenomenology
- Find a journal
- Publish with us
- Track your research
Extract insights from Customer & Employee Interviews. At Scale.
Defining qualitative research: what is it and how to use.
Home » Defining Qualitative Research: What Is It and How to Use
Understanding Qualitative Research is essential for anyone looking to delve into human behavior and social phenomena. Imagine standing in a bustling marketplace, observing interactions, and absorbing the nuances of conversation. This immersive experience reflects the essence of qualitative research, where the focus is on exploring rich, detailed insights rather than mere numerical data.
Qualitative research serves as a valuable tool for understanding complex issues through participant perspectives. By employing various methods like interviews and focus groups, researchers gain in-depth insights into people's thoughts and motivations. This section will explore the importance of qualitative research, its methodologies, and how it can be effectively applied to uncover hidden patterns in human behavior for informed decision-making.
Defining Qualitative Research: What Is It?
Qualitative research is fundamentally about understanding the experiences and perspectives of individuals in depth. It focuses on subjective narratives and often employs methods like interviews, focus groups, and observations. This approach allows researchers to capture the richness of human experiences, facilitating a deeper understanding of the context behind people's thoughts and actions.
Central to this method is the belief that reality is socially constructed, and meanings vary across different cultures and situations. Understanding qualitative research is crucial for anyone looking to explore complex issues where the nuances of human behavior matter. By prioritizing participants' viewpoints, qualitative research reveals insights that quantitative methods might overlook, providing valuable context for decision-making processes. This makes it an essential tool in fields ranging from market research to social sciences, allowing businesses to craft strategies rooted in genuine consumer understanding.
The Core Principles of Qualitative Research
Understanding qualitative research relies on a few core principles that guide its approach and application. First, qualitative research prioritizes depth over breadth, focusing on understanding human experiences and perceptions in context. This method seeks to uncover the meanings participants attach to their experiences, moving beyond mere data points to explore emotions, motivations, and social interactions.
Second, it emphasizes flexibility, allowing researchers to adapt their methods based on ongoing findings and participant feedback. This iterative process enhances the richness of the data collected. Third, qualitative research values the subjective nature of data, recognizing that reality is constructed through individual perspectives. Researchers must remain aware of their biases and strive to present participants' voices authentically. By adhering to these principles, one can gain a more nuanced understanding of qualitative research and its invaluable insights.
Distinguishing Qualitative from Quantitative Research
Qualitative and quantitative research serve distinct purposes and offer different types of insights. Understanding qualitative research involves recognizing its focus on exploring complex human experiences and social phenomena. It employs interviews, focus groups, or open-ended surveys to collect rich, descriptive data. This approach allows researchers to uncover motivations, feelings, and personal narratives that numbers alone cannot reveal.
In contrast, quantitative research emphasizes numerical data and statistical analysis. It uses structured tools like surveys and experiments to gather measurable information. This method seeks to quantify variables and often tests hypotheses, providing a broader overview that can generalize findings to larger populations. Distinguishing between these methodologies is vital for researchers, as blending them can enhance the depth and breadth of analysis, ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.
How to Use Qualitative Research: Understanding Qualitative Research in Practice
Understanding qualitative research in practice begins with recognizing its unique characteristics and applications in various fields. It emphasizes the importance of context, exploring human experiences and social phenomena through methods such as interviews, focus groups, and observations. This approach allows researchers to delve deeply into participants' perspectives, providing rich, nuanced insights that quantitative research often misses.
To effectively use qualitative research, consider these key steps:
- Define Objectives : Clearly outline what you aim to discover or understand. This helps guide your research design.
- Select Methodology : Choose appropriate methods for data collection, such as interviews or participant observations, aligned with your objectives.
- Collect and Analyze Data : Gather qualitative data thoughtfully, then analyze it for patterns and themes that emerge from the narrative.
- Interpret Findings : Draw meaningful conclusions that can influence practices or inform decisions based on the insights gained.
By following these steps, you enhance your ability to translate qualitative insights into actionable knowledge.
Methods and Techniques
Understanding qualitative research involves a variety of methods and techniques designed to gather rich, meaningful data. One commonly used method is in-depth interviews, where researchers engage directly with participants to explore their thoughts and feelings. This personal approach allows for deeper insights into complex topics that quantitative data may overlook. Additionally, focus groups offer a collaborative environment where diverse perspectives can emerge, revealing shared experiences and differing viewpoints.
Another valuable technique is participant observation, where researchers immerse themselves in the environment they study. This provides context to behaviors and interactions, enhancing the understanding of social dynamics. Finally, content analysis allows researchers to systematically analyze communication materials, such as text or media, to identify underlying themes and patterns. By combining these methods, a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter can be achieved, paving the way for more informed decisions and strategies in research initiatives.
Analyzing Qualitative Data
Analyzing qualitative data involves interpreting non-numerical information to extract meaningful insights. This process often reveals themes, patterns, and relationships that might not be immediately apparent. To master this, it is crucial to adopt systematic approaches. Here are some key strategies to enhance your analytical skills:
Coding : Start by organizing the data through a coding system. Assign labels to segments of your data that represent meaningful concepts. This simplifies the analysis by identifying patterns early on.
Thematic Analysis : After coding, group similar codes into themes. This helps to see broader patterns that emerge from the data, shedding light on underlying trends.
Triangulation : Use multiple sources or methods to validate findings. This reinforces the credibility of your results and helps to mitigate bias.
Interpretation : Finally, analyze the implications of your findings. What do they mean in the context of your research? Connecting insights to the core questions of your study strengthens your overall narrative.
Understanding qualitative research relies heavily on these analytical methods, providing a solid foundation for making informed decisions based on qualitative data. By applying these techniques diligently, researchers can uncover rich insights that drive meaningful conclusions.
Conclusion: Understanding Qualitative Research’s Importance and Application
Qualitative research plays a crucial role in understanding human experiences, emotions, and motivations. By focusing on narrative-driven data, researchers can gain insights that quantitative methods may overlook. This rich data allows for a deeper exploration of complex issues, enabling organizations to derive meaningful conclusions and informed decisions. Understanding qualitative research empowers teams to craft tailored solutions that resonate with their target audience.
Additionally, its application extends across various fields, from market research to user experience design. With the proper tools and methodologies, qualitative research can streamline processes, automating data analysis and improving report generation. Ultimately, prioritizing qualitative methods fosters a more holistic understanding of subjects, driving innovation and enhancing outcomes.
Turn interviews into actionable insights
On this Page
Steps for Identifying Qualitative Research Type of Data Collected
You may also like, qualitative research used for: advanced applications.
Analyzing Qualitative Survey Data Analysis Techniques
Advanced research design methods for qualitative research.
Unlock Insights from Interviews 10x faster
![what is qualitative research design](https://insight7.io/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Shape-Icon-4.png)
- Request demo
- Get started for free
![what is qualitative research design USAID logo](https://usaidlearninglab.org/themes/custom/learninglab/img/usaid-logo.png)
- Search USAID Learning Lab Search
- Login to Contribute
Designing Qualitative Research for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
Click here to access the course
In this 2.5-hour Designing Qualitative Research for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) e-course, you will learn how to design and plan for a rigorous qualitative study or routine monitoring activity using the step-by-step guidance provided by the Qualitative Inquiry Planning Sheet (QuIPS).
After completing this course, you will be able to:
- design a qualitative inquiry that aligns with your project’s existing knowledge and evidence gaps;
- identify the appropriate qualitative methodology and sampling for your research;
- develop a plan for data collection, management, and analysis;
- address research limitations, risks, and your ethical review; and
- create a plan for engaging key stakeholders in the design and dissemination of findings.
The course includes:
Module 1: Pre-Design Work
- Identify evidence gaps based on source documents.
- Identify key people who can support, advise, and review your inquiry work.
- Identify key stakeholders who would benefit from the results of your qualitative inquiry.
Module 2: Defining the Purpose, Objectives, and Inquiry Questions
- Identify the purpose and objectives of your inquiry.
- Define the questions you hope to answer.
- Determine the type of data you will collect to answer these questions.
Module 3: Designing the Methodology
- Learn about a variety of qualitative inquiry methods.
- Identify which methods and tools are most appropriate for your qualitative inquiry.
- Learn how to choose a sampling strategy.
Module 4: Planning for Data Collection and Analysis
- Develop an implementation plan for data collection.
- Understand the process for qualitative data analysis and be able to articulate your data analysis plan.
- Understand the best way to share and use your qualitative findings.
Module 5: Anticipating Limitations and Risks and Ethical Review
- Document the constraints and ethical research protocol of your qualitative inquiry.
Developed by IDEAL in close partnership with the USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), this course is based on the Qualitative Design Toolkit , which focuses its guidance on completing the QuIPS. To learn more about the e-course on the FSN website HERE or access the course directly on the Humanitarian Leadership Academy's Kaya platform HERE .
Page last updated August 23, 2024
- Help & FAQ
A qualitative evaluation of a co-design process involving young people at risk of suicide
- Occupational Therapy
Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
Background: Co-design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co-design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co-design process undertaken during a COVID-19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co-design process. Setting and Participants: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co-design process. Method: This study used follow-up semistructured interviews with the co-design participants to explore their experience of the co-design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. Results: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co-design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. Discussion: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co-design provided a human-centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. Conclusion: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co-design process. Patient and Public Contribution: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived experience and their carers who participated in the co-design process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in this research.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | e13986 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | |
Volume | 27 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Feb 2024 |
- process evaluation
- youth suicide
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Access to Document
- 10.1111/hex.13986 Licence: CC BY
Other files and links
- Link to publication in Scopus
T1 - A qualitative evaluation of a co-design process involving young people at risk of suicide
AU - Kehoe, Michelle
AU - Whitehead, Rick
AU - de Boer, Kathleen
AU - Meyer, Denny
AU - Hopkins, Liza
AU - Nedeljkovic, Maja
N1 - Funding Information: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge all those who participated in the co-design process and research component of this study, in particular the young people with a lived experience who gave up their valuable time and expertise. They would also like to acknowledge that this work was carried out on the lands of the people of the Kulin Nation and they pay their respects to their culture and their Elders past, present and emerging. The initiative described in this paper was funded by the Victoria Department of Health to address youth suicide. Funding for the evaluation of the initiative was provided by Suicide Prevention Australia without which this study would not have been possible. Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley - Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians. Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2024/2
Y1 - 2024/2
N2 - Background: Co-design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co-design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co-design process undertaken during a COVID-19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co-design process. Setting and Participants: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co-design process. Method: This study used follow-up semistructured interviews with the co-design participants to explore their experience of the co-design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. Results: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co-design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. Discussion: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co-design provided a human-centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. Conclusion: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co-design process. Patient and Public Contribution: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived experience and their carers who participated in the co-design process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in this research.
AB - Background: Co-design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co-design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co-design process undertaken during a COVID-19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co-design process. Setting and Participants: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co-design process. Method: This study used follow-up semistructured interviews with the co-design participants to explore their experience of the co-design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. Results: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co-design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. Discussion: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co-design provided a human-centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. Conclusion: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co-design process. Patient and Public Contribution: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived experience and their carers who participated in the co-design process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in this research.
KW - co-design
KW - process evaluation
KW - youth suicide
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85184692942&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/hex.13986
DO - 10.1111/hex.13986
M3 - Article
C2 - 38343139
AN - SCOPUS:85184692942
SN - 1369-6513
JO - Health Expectations
JF - Health Expectations
M1 - e13986
Log in using your username and password
- Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
- Latest content
- For authors
- Browse by collection
- BMJ Journals
You are here
- Volume 14, Issue 8
- Qualitative exploration of patients’ experiences with Intrabeam TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) and External-Beam RadioTherapy Treatment (EBRT) for breast cancer
- Article Text
- Article info
- Citation Tools
- Rapid Responses
- Article metrics
![what is qualitative research design Download PDF](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/sites/default/themes/bmjj/img/icon-pdf.png)
- http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7573-6712 Sandeep Kumar Bagga 1 ,
- Natalie Swiderska 2 ,
- Charlotte Hooker 1 ,
- Jennifer Royle 3 ,
- Marie Ennis-O'Connor 4 ,
- Siobhan Freeney 5 ,
- Dympna Watson 4 ,
- Robin Woolcock 6 ,
- George Lodge 7 ,
- Siobhan Laws 7 ,
- http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1760-1278 Jayant S Vaidya 8
- 1 Research , MediPaCe , London , UK
- 2 Patient Engagement , MediPaCe , London , UK
- 3 Strategy , MediPaCe , London , UK
- 4 Independent Patient Advocate , Dublin , Ireland
- 5 Lobular (Breast Cancer) Ireland , Dublin , Ireland
- 6 Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation Inc , London , UK
- 7 Royal Hampshire County Hospital , Winchester , UK
- 8 Division of Surgery and Interventional Science , University College London , London , UK
- Correspondence to Dr Sandeep Kumar Bagga; sandeep{at}medipace.com
Objective To gather a deep qualitative understanding of the perceived benefits and impacts of External-Beam RadioTherapy (EBRT) and TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) using Intrabeam to assess how the treatments affected patient/care partner experiences during their cancer treatment and beyond.
Design and participants A patient-led working group was established to guide study design and to help validate findings. Patients with experience of receiving EBRT or TARGIT-IORT were purposively sampled by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. These patients had been offered both regimens as per their clinical features and eligibility. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 29 patients and care partners with lived experience of either EBRT (n=12, 5-day FAST-Forward regimen and n=3, 3-week regimen) or TARGIT-IORT (n=14). Thematic analysis was then carried out by two coders generating 11 themes related to EBRT or TARGIT-IORT.
Setting Semistructured interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom during February and March 2023.
Results A number of procedural grievances were noted among EBRT patients. EBRT was perceived as being disruptive to normal routines (work, home and travel) and caused discomfort from side effects. TARGIT-IORT was perceived by patients and care partners as the safer option and efficient with minimal if any disruptions to quality of life. The need for timely accessible information to reduce anxieties was noted in both cohorts.
Conclusions This qualitative study found that patients perceived EBRT as being greatly disruptive to their lives. In contrast, the one-off feature of TARGIT-IORT given while they are asleep during surgery gives them the feeling of stamping out the cancer without conscious awareness. These insights can help healthcare staff and policy-makers further justify the incorporation of the treatment favoured by these patient perceptions (TARGIT-IORT) more widely in routine practice. Further research is planned to explore TARGIT-IORT in more diverse populations and in the 35 countries where it is an established treatment option.
- breast cancer
- radiotherapy
- qualitative research
- breast surgery
- quality of life
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Raw data such as interview transcripts are not publicly available due to participant confidentiality and risk of compromising privacy but can be made available to researchers if appropriate confidentiality, ethics, regulatory and consent processes can be put in place.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081222
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request permissions.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
This qualitative study included the two routinely offered radiotherapy treatment options (External-Beam RadioTherapy and TARgeted Intraoperative radioTherapy using Intrabeam) allowing for assessment of patients’ perceptions and experiences in each.
Methodological strengths include measures to prevent researcher bias, such as producing reflexive accounts, independent coding, and exploring both patient and care partner perspectives .
Extensive involvement of a patient-led working group ensures the study design and delivery is robust yet sensitive and respectful.
A limitation is the lack of diversity in the study population, being predominantly white and of higher socioeconomic status from a single English location because of which we are planning to explore these concepts in more diverse populations and in the 35 other countries where TARGIT-IORT is already a well-established treatment option.
The COVID-19 pandemic during which the patients were treated may have introduced some confounding factors, but they did provide useful insights into patient isolation issues.
Introduction
Conventionally, radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer has involved patients undergoing External-Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) several weeks or months after their surgical removal (lumpectomy). EBRT is usually delivered postoperatively to the whole breast. For external beam radiotherapy, patients are required to attend 15 treatment sessions, each lasting about 15 min, 5 days a week over 3–6 weeks. 1 , 2 In 2020, the FAST-Forward protocol, administering radiotherapy over five sessions, was adopted in some parts of UK, partly as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and even before the results of the FAST-Forward trial were published. 3 An additional 5–8 days of tumour bed boost is given in about a quarter of cases who are found to have higher-risk disease. 3
Targeted Intraoperative Radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) using Intrabeam offers an alternative to women with early breast cancer that is currently being used in a small number of hospitals across England. This approach, first used in 1998, delivers a single dose of radiotherapy directly to the breast tissue surrounding the tumour immediately after the tumour has been removed and the patient is still under the same anaesthetic in the operating theatre. The long-term results of the international randomised TARGIT-A trial (n=2298) in which TARGIT-IORT was compared with EBRT found TARGIT-IORT to be effective as whole breast radiotherapy, reduced non-breast cancer deaths and improved overall survival in those with grade 1 and grade 2 cancers. 4–12
To date, several studies have investigated patients’ experiences with TARGIT-IORT quantitatively. 13–18 These studies gathered information about patients’ quality of life (QoL) during and after treatment via questionnaires and have concluded that patients receiving TARGIT-IORT report high QoL scores 13 and better emotional well-being, less pain, fewer breast and arm symptoms compared with patients receiving EBRT. 14 19 The social impact of reducing the repeated journeys to the radiotherapy centre for both the patient and their care partner has been established. 20 Patient preferences have also been explored in studies based in the USA and Australia. 21–24 However, qualitative insights can give researchers and practitioners an in-depth understanding of patient perceptions that can help explain, with confidence, the reasoning behind the difference in QoL experienced by patients having these treatments.
Much of the literature on patients’ experiences of receiving radiotherapy has focused on EBRT alone where qualitative studies have used various methods such as workshops, interviews and diary entry analysis. Recurring themes include the need for adequate information provision, healthcare professionals’ knowledge of breast or arm lymphoedema (sluggish drainage of lymph fluid), perceived lack of choice, experiences of being naked and feelings of disempowerment, 25 psychological burdens of impact (and the resources required to support patients), 26 impact of side effects such as skin toxicity on patients’ QoL, life and health after radiotherapy and feeling mystified by radiotherapy and how it works. 27 28 While there are other studies investigating breast cancer patients’ lived experiences of receiving the diagnosis, treatment perceptions, experiences of survivorship and symptoms from radiotherapy, 29–34 they do not focus on lived experiences of receiving EBRT specifically.
In addition, the literature review has highlighted that no qualitative comparison of patients’ experiences of TARGIT-IORT and EBRT has been conducted although one qualitative study, exploring overdiagnosis of breast cancer, did briefly describe the experiences of patients having TARGIT-IORT and EBRT. 35 Rich descriptions of authentic experience can help to place the treatment pathway in the context of patients’ everyday world and to truly understand the perceived barriers, benefits and personal consequences of treatment. Therefore, this study is designed to gather a deep understanding of how patients define the benefits and impacts of each therapeutic regimen and how this qualitatively affects patients’ and/or care partners’ experiences. As a secondary aim, the study will also identify where there have been unnecessary treatment-related impacts on QoL and areas of potential improvement.
Methodology
Study design.
This study used a qualitative research design with semistructured interviews as the primary research instrument. Researchers adopted a phenomenological approach which encourages a bracketing off of researchers’ own preconceptions and opinions to help mitigate bias and promotes a special importance to individual human experience where multiple realities exist (based on participants’ own subjective experiences).
At the inception of the study, a patient-led working group was established to ensure the research was designed and conducted in a respectful and sensitive manner. Figure 1 outlines the research process. The authors have used the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research to report the study 36 (see online supplemental file 1 ).
Supplemental material
- Download figure
- Open in new tab
- Download powerpoint
Overview of research process. EBRT, External-Beam RadioTherapy; TARGIT-IORT, TARGeted intraoperative radiotherapy; REC, Research Ethics Committee.
Working group
Four patient advocates (three patients who had been treated for breast cancer and one care partner) with lived experiences of radiotherapy were invited to participate in a working group with the researchers. An initial meeting was held on 19 August 2022. In this meeting, the research design was discussed which included reviewing the study aims, the need for a comparison group, data collection method and participant recruitment channels. The second meeting, on 30 May 2023, focused on validating the emerging themes from the analysis. Between these meetings, the researchers shared early drafts of the core research material (eg, participant information sheet and consent form) to obtain members’ feedback and suggestions for amendments. The working group has also coauthored this paper.
Recruitment of participants and consent
A key outcome of the first working group meeting was to ensure the study design had a comparison group. This meant recruiting patients or care partners with lived experience of receiving EBRT to enable a comparison to those who had received TARGIT-IORT. The eligibility criteria are based on criteria used previously in TARGIT-IORT clinical trials ( table 1 ). All patients were, at the time of their cancer diagnosis, eligible for both TARGIT-IORT and EBRT.
- View inline
Eligibility criteria for interview participants
Participants were first identified by SL and GL at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in accordance with the eligibility criteria, using purposive sampling (NHS stands for National Health Service, which is provided free for cost to patients in the United Kingdom). This Trust recruited patients to the randomised TARGIT-A trial between 2000 and 2012. Since the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendation to offer TARGIT-IORT to suitable patients, they have been offering the procedure to their patients. For this study, GL compiled a list of all patients who received either TARGIT-IORT or EBRT. Prospective participants were stratified first into rural and urban subgroups and then by age (50–60 and 60–70). A randomiser was then applied to these subgroups to ensure the final selection process was free from bias from clinicians who had treated patients. Cover letters and recruitment advertisements (approved by the ethics committee) were posted by GL to 58 eligible patients. Those interested in participating in the study contacted researchers voluntarily. Subsequently, the researchers shared a participant information sheet, consent form and provided further information during a short introductory call where participants also had the opportunity to ask further questions about the purpose and conduct of the research. In total 29 participants responded, and all were successfully recruited to the study. Participant characteristics can be found in table 2 .
Sample characteristics of interview participants
Semistructured interviews
Working group members agreed semistructured interviews should be used to gain rich descriptive accounts of experiences with EBRT and TARGIT-IORT. Members felt discussing sensitive and privileged information, namely people’s experiences of receiving the cancer diagnosis and treatment, would be more uncomfortable in, for example, a focus group environment. Therefore, two discussion guides (one for each type of radiotherapy) were developed and refined with the help of working group members (see online supplemental files 2 and 3 ). Interviews were conducted between 9 February 2023 and 2 March 2023 by researchers SKB, NS and JR who are experienced in using qualitative research methods as part of their professional roles. Each interview lasted approximately 60 min and was conducted virtually through Zoom and either digitally video recorded or audio recorded depending on participants’ wishes. The identity of the interviewer can positively or negatively affect the interviewer–interviewee relationship. Participants were, therefore, asked whether they would prefer an interviewer of the same sex, with the default position being that a female interviewer (NS or JR) will conduct the interview with patients and similarly, a male interviewer (SKB) for male care partners. During the interviews, informal member checking took place by interviewers routinely summarising what participants had said to check for accuracy and understanding.
Recordings were transcribed verbatim, with potentially identifying details anonymised and assigned a unique identifier.
In keeping with a phenomenological approach to analysis, researchers began by writing reflexive accounts. This involved reflecting on their own experiences, preconceptions and assumptions that have the potential to influence interpretations of participants’ accounts. This process helps to create the self-awareness required when attempting to consciously bracket out thoughts and opinions that could lead to bias.
Reflexive thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke’s 37–39 six-step approach was used to analyse the qualitative data and to identify recurring themes related to patient and care partner experience ( figure 2 ). The process of data familiarisation took place during data collection, postinterview reflections, transcribing and re-reading the transcriptions and interview field notes. Initial transcripts were individually coded (identifying units of meaning) by two researchers (SKB and NS) who then reviewed the other’s codes. Through subsequent discussion and reflection and agreement that theoretical saturation was sufficiently achieved, codes were finalised and applied throughout the remaining transcripts. Through an iterative process, descriptive and interpretative codes were categorised to form 28 subthemes and 11 major themes. Microsoft Word and Excel were used to facilitate coding, grouping and text retrieval to identify illustrative quotes.
Reflexive thematic analysis (adapted from Braun and Clarke, 2020). 37
Patient and public involvement
Patients were involved in refining the research question, study design and outcome measures. Their contributions during these discussions were informed by their lived experiences, priorities and preferences during the first working group meeting (described above in the ‘Methodology, Working group’ section). Participant identification and recruitment channels were also discussed with the patient-led working group though they were not directly involved in recruitment into the study nor in the conduct of the study. The results of the study will be disseminated to the study participants once the peer-reviewed paper is published. The burden of the intervention was assessed by the patients themselves for this qualitative study.
The following section presents findings from the thematic analysis which looked at EBRT and TARGIT-IORT separately and the outputs from discussions of the second working group meeting ( table 3 ). Participants’ quotes have been labelled with identifiers (eg, P1, P2) not known to anyone other than the researchers (ie, not the hospital staff, participants themselves or anyone else).
Themes and subthemes arising from the interviews
Themes coming out of interviews with patients who had EBRT
Dissatisfaction with unalterable elements of ebrt procedure.
The majority of EBRT participants expressed discontent with many of the standard elements of the EBRT procedure. Some participants felt intimidated by the size of the room being ‘disturbing’ (P22) and the radiotherapy machine being ‘scary’ (P19):
…the room that you go into where the machine is, is cold…it could be a bit warmer. Now, some of that could be psychological because you're in a big white room with a big, huge machine… (P3) …the 2 nurses go into another side room, so, you feel so alone, and you know, and this machine sort of moving around you. It’s, it is quite scary to deal with. (P19)
Four participants also described the challenge associated with needing to hold one’s breath during sessions. This is done with the hope that the heart may receive less radiation by pushing the chest wall and the breast away from it. Participants described it as saying, ‘ that was the worst bit’ (P12), ‘ it’s going to be difficult’ (P15), ‘ I don’t want to be zapped on my heart’ (P21) and another felt it was ‘ really claustrophobic’ (P19) or causing ‘ panic’ (P19). The planning appointment required for EBRT was met with similar dissatisfaction. While there is a clear appreciation for healthcare staff and their workload, participants were unhappy with the dehumanising nature of these appointments:
You become another face… you do feel like a slab of meat while they're trying to get you in the right position and it’s not a pleasant experience. (P19)
These experiences resonated with working group members’ recollections: ‘silent’ and ‘cold, dark room’ and finding it difficult, a ‘physical challenge’ to maintain position after surgery. Another member felt that while healthcare staff were pleasant, the experience of receiving radiotherapy itself is ‘quite traumatic’ and emotional, ‘I remember lying there and tears came from nowhere…’.
As with study participants, working group members acknowledged that while healthcare staff themselves are not at fault, the ‘system’ causes the dehumanising elements described by participants referring to poor staffing levels and a high-pressure work environment within healthcare.
In contrast, one participant positively describes the EBRT sessions, ‘ there’s music on, and I didn’t find any cause to worry at all’ (P15). The relaxing effect of music was echoed by a working group member who also recalled how music helped in which she felt was ‘ brilliant’ and stated ‘ it helped my head’ .
Finally, one-third of participants expressed a strong objection to being tattooed which was required to ensure radiation is delivered to the right location.
What really did wind me up actually, I had to have the 3 dots tattooed on me and I didn’t want tattoos. (P3)
Participants were frustrated by the fact that it is permanent, the colour used and two participants felt it affected their confidence in wearing certain clothes, ‘ I can still see that now, if I wear a swimsuit or something’ (19 ). One working group member felt that patients are often uninformed about radiotherapy and that patients’ preferences are not listened to. She concluded that this was a good example of an area that required adequate information sharing at the right time.
Unanticipated disruptions cause helplessness
One-third of EBRT participants experienced either delays on the day of the EBRT session or extensions to their course owing to either machine failure or staff absences. The impacts on patients and care partners include stress, aggravation and disappointment with knock-on consequences proving to be burdensome:
…the machine broke down…but I couldn't find [the new hospital], and I got really tired and upset. I was trying to find where I was supposed to go, and nobody seemed to know, and I just managed to grab the team before they went home. I was like, ‘Give me my last radiotherapy now!’ It was down in some basement I mean. Location S is a maze. So, that was a bit stressy. (P1)
Patients who received their EBRT during the COVID-19 pandemic were unable to have their care partners (in most cases husbands) with them at key treatment stages. This isolation caused additional anxieties in the EBRT cohort as one care partner stated, ‘ it’s disappointing and it would have been nicer for me to be able to support her more…’ (P23). Similarly, a patient participant states:
…it’s anxiety level of just having that, that security blanket of having somebody there with you. (P19)
The working group discussed isolation and the emotional impact during EBRT sessions. Since EBRT continues for days and indeed weeks in some cases (5–6 weeks for all members), patients truly feel alone during this phase. They recalled overwhelming feelings of sadness during the sessions with thoughts such as, ‘ how did I get here’ . One member expressed empathy with study participants who would have had to endure further isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic period.
Straightforward sessions were met with surprise but travelling for EBRT was still a concern
Four out of the 15 participants interviewed from the EBRT cohort, stated that no side effects or other complications were experienced with one participant saying she felt like ‘ one of the lucky ones’ (P20). In the absence of side effects such as pain, burning or tiredness, patients experience a sense of surprise and relief after having received prior warnings from either clinical staff or hearing stories from friends and family.
…they said to put a couple of tubes of aloe vera, and keep in the fridge, and put it on religiously. But I was fine. I was fine. I literally had no burning. No rash, no nothing. I’d heard about friends having burns, but I just didn’t, I didn’t. (P12)
Similarly, three participants were appreciative of the fact that individual sessions of EBRT were in fact ‘ very straightforward’ (P1) and quick:
I did find the time, actually, went quite quick. It wasn’t very long; it might have been an hour. Yeah, it wasn’t too long. (P1)
Although these four participants did not experience radiation-related side effects, it should be noted that two of the four participants did, express frustrations about the burden of travelling during EBRT sessions and that the overall radiotherapy course was ‘ time-consuming’ (P2).
Disruption to normal life routines
A few participants were either employed or self-employed and described how EBRT impacted their own work performance (eg, tiredness, weakness in arm) with one person concluding, ‘ I’m an office worker but if I’d be doing a manual job, I think it might have impacted more.’ (P3). There is also the realisation that patients would likely need to adjust work sessions to accommodate for the EBRT sessions and the related side effects: ‘ I’ve worked out a part time basis to get back into work.’ (P19).
Participants shared concerns about the impact on work colleagues. One participant states: ‘ I’m the only person that does my job. So, I was acutely aware that when I’m not at work other people are picking up my job’ (P19). Similarly:
…we were a short-staffed team, I was aware that when I wasn’t there, it was putting work onto other people, and I felt I should have been there…. (P3)
The EBRT cohort also revealed the emotional toll of work-related worries and impacts, and the work guilt associated with the impact on colleagues. Similarly, the potential impact on the care partner’s work is also, clearly, a significant consideration for patients:
The first night after my first session I was in so much pain, I mean I didn’t sleep a wink the first night. It was absolute agony…it was my self-confidence, and everything was destroyed…and I didn’t dare, I didn’t want to wake my husband up. He had to go to work early, so then he could take me to radiotherapy in the afternoon. (P19)
These impacts on employment were corroborated during working group discussions. One member, commenting in particular on self-employed people, described the impact on financial standing and home life as ‘catastrophic’.
In contrast, those who had flexible hours of working were less affected, as one patient participant describes her care partner: ‘ luckily he was doing a job where could sort of pick and choose what he did and his hours, so it was all right.’ (P3).
The repetitive nature of the EBRT sessions, the travel involved and the side effects experienced all also impacted on participants’ normal daily routines. For instance, home activities such as shopping, gardening and caring responsibilities were impacted:
I think we might have cut down [caring for elderly parents] to once a week instead of two or three times… (P3)
One participant mentioned a close family member taking a week off from work to support looking after her, her husband, family pets and ‘ doing a few household chores like pushing the Hoover around’ (P22).
Severe pain brought on by EBRT was described as ‘ agony’ (P19) both during sessions and after sessions (P7). Ongoing pain months and years after the radiotherapy means patients need to settle into a new norm, now constantly having to be aware of their own ‘ limitations’ (P6):
I’m still aching like mad from [radiotherapy], that’s two years later and I’m still achy and in pain. (P6)
For working group members, these experiences were familiar. One member clarified that although there were no specific side effects from the radiotherapy the disruption to life was ‘ hugely problematic’ .
Many of the patients who received the FAST-Forward protocol included sessions on either side of a weekend resulting in a total of 7 days to complete the course. No participants complained specifically about the weekend being involved in this way however many described dedicated activities for the weekend, for example, food shopping, family commitments and short trips away which would undoubtedly be affected while in active treatment.
Conversations with participants revealed personalities play a role in patients’ cancer journey. One participant felt the emotional impact of radiotherapy treatment (and the subsequent withdrawal of routine contact with healthcare staff) more than all the others. The anxieties associated with this perceived void and the mental health impact itself are disruptive to re-engaging with normal life and routines:
…you’ve got people checking on you as in consultants or the breast care specialist nurses, your GP, the radiographer, people ringing you, checking on you, you’re seeing them all the time. After the radiotherapy, I’m suddenly though on my own now. I didn’t realise it was a real security blanket…it was so reassuring to seeing the consultant and seeing this nurses every day. That was the bit where I took a bit of a dive…I had two or three days where I couldn’t stop crying, I thought, ‘Oh I’m on my own now’… (P12)
There were also those who demonstrated a pragmatic mindset viewing any discomfort and impactful delays associated with EBRT sessions as realities to, in effect, take in their stride, ‘ any inconvenience, you just get on with it.’ (P20 )
Travel is clearly an uncomfortable reality and a demanding aspect of receiving EBRT. Many participants complained about the repeated journeys required for EBRT sessions. The burden has been described as ‘ dreadful’ (P7) with people feeling ‘ exhausted’ particularly where the effects of radiotherapy (tiredness and pain) are felt. The burden of travel also manifests as experiencing a longer day overall as well as the sheer cost of public transport used to make the trips independently:
It’s a pain having to go to Location S, there’s a hospital there where the bus doesn’t even go. So, from Location O, I have to get a bus from here to Location H, then wait half an hour, then from Location H to Location W, bus station, then a taxi to the hospital. That all costs 30 quid and is time-consuming, and when you’re sore, it’s not ideal. (P2)
In the majority of cases, there is a reliance on others (the husband but on occasion friends or children) to drive participants to the EBRT sessions. While there are no direct statements indicating a burden to care partners, it is important to note that in these cases both the patient and the care partner endure the repeated journeys:
My husband drove…I’m not a good driver…I certainly can’t park so it was good that he went with me because in case, if something went wrong or something because he’s like my rock he is. (P3)
The location of the EBRT sessions is critical to the quality of patient experience and when participants were presented with two hospitals to choose from it was clearly valued:
…it’s the same surgeons, all the same team, who were in Hospital W or B. I opted for Hospital B, it’s nearer to me and I could get to Hospital B easily, whereas Hospital W was an ordeal for me. (P21)
Two participants who were retired and for who the location of the hospital was particularly close indicated that travel was not a burden and considered themselves ‘ very lucky’ (P22), though of note, one of these participants experienced no EBRT side effects which may have contributed to relatively positive experience.
In contrast to many of the experiences described above, one working group member shared that she was relieved to have regained her independence since she was able to travel to her EBRT sessions herself. However, the working group notes that all their experiences included a difficult period of receiving chemotherapy first where radiotherapy was viewed as the ‘lesser of evils’.
Experience characterised by discomfort from side effects
A wide range of side effects, clearly attributed to EBRT, were reported by the vast majority of participants and this characterises an important part of the EBRT experience. These included varying intensities of tiredness; burning (from warm sensation to blistered and sore); skin-related conditions (dryness, itchiness, rash); pain; and breast size and density changes. The most common complaint was tiredness:
…there were 3 or 4 days the following week when I just had to go to bed, or just have to, you know, lie on the sofa in the afternoon, or you know I was just really bombed out, and I’m not someone who goes to bed and afternoon normally, I’m always busy, and but I had to. I was knackered. (P12)
EBRT sessions can be very uncomfortable. Severe pain, described as ‘ agony’ (P7, P19) was experienced by two participants. One individual, unable to withstand the pain and the tiredness experienced, made an independent decision to stop attending the sessions for a few days:
I was very tired…I think I might have missed a few days, because I couldn’t make it in between…I thought I’ve done so much now, I’m not going to go anymore because it was really, really hurting…I just wanted it to end and go away? And not think about it anymore basically. (P7)
Patients experienced some side effects such pain in the breast or weakness in the arm for a prolonged period—months and years after the EBRT sessions. There were also reports of new symptoms requiring follow-up that were attributed to EBRT. One participant (P8), who felt uninformed about the ‘long-term, lasting and late effects of radiotherapy’ had developed a new pain under her ribs—she reflected:
I would not have had radiotherapy, and I would not be beating myself up about having had it now had I been given the full information about the long-term effects. You know, it’s life-shortening, radiotherapy is life shortening in itself like chemotherapy. (P8)
During discussions at the second working group meeting, members were not surprised by the insights captured from study participants and felt strongly that there were ‘no positives’ from EBRT (particularly when compared with TARGIT-IORT). One member reflecting on their experience with EBRT stated they came away thinking ‘almost anything is better than this.’ (WG member)
Specific anxieties about receiving EBRT
Discussions with the EBRT cohort revealed three main anxieties associated with receiving radiotherapy. First, while there is evidence that more information early on (particularly from consultants) helps to reduce worry, stories of radiotherapy experiences from friends and family members can raise concerns and anxiety levels:
I only knew what I knew as a lay person, you know, various friends have had radiotherapy, unfortunately, people know a lot of people who have all these sort of things… I’d heard about friends having burns… (P12) …and actually, talking to another friend, she said she would do chemotherapy any day over radiotherapy because of how the radiotherapy, the pushing around and making you feel like a piece of meat, how it how it made her feel. (P19)
The second concern was the potential for radiation to cause harm: (a) so soon after surgery and (b) to healthy tissue and organs: ‘ You’ve got to heal a bit; you can’t go straight into radiotherapy because obviously you’re as raw as hell’ (P6). Two participants in particular experienced discomfort in their arms during their EBRT sessions—one participant had a number of lymph nodes removed from the armpit and one participant developed a seroma which is an abnormal accumulation of fluid following surgery. A working group member shared a similar experience where the development of seroma delayed the start of her radiotherapy course.
Another participant who was particularly concerned about unnecessary radiation exposure requested that only half the breast be irradiated because she wanted ‘ the absolute minimum’ (P8). Similarly, another care partner described his wife’s concerns:
One thing is that my wife was worried about was the radiotherapy because obviously there is this thing with radiotherapy, particularly on the breast, of potential damage to the lungs and she was very concerned about that. (P23)
Third, since many of the participants received their EBRT during the COVID-19 pandemic, a few expressed worries about potential delays either due to staff shortages, protocol-driven cancellations (ie, limiting patient numbers) or themselves contracting COVID-19 (since multiple visits are required with EBRT) and thereby being unable to attend hospital:
But COVID was going on and I remember being so scared that my appointments would be cancelled. (P12)
Targeted Intraoperative radiotherapy using Intrabeam
Perception that targit-iort is efficient and aggravation-free.
Of the 14 TARGIT-IORT participants interviewed, 11 indicated the one-off feature of the procedure was appealing. There are many references to how quickly the procedure was completed ‘ it’s lovely to get it all done and finished with on the day’ (P26). Similarly:
…having it done and dusted, and then then waving goodbye at the hospital gates, it was like why, why would I say, ‘No thank you’? (P16)
As a consequence of this efficiency, there is relief that the procedure permitted radiotherapy to be administered without any COVID-19-related delays, or exposure to the COVID-19 virus during travel or hospital during the multiple visits for EBRT, or complications for which three participants had expressed initial concerns:
I was just delighted that it was dealt with really, really quickly, because back at that time the news was full of things where, you know, because of COVID-19, you know, everything has been delayed, and people not getting cancer treatment and that was one of my, I remember having that conversation with the consultant and said, ‘Look are we going to be delayed’. (P25)
There is a similar relief detected in participants discussing the potential positive impact TARGIT-IORT can have on patient’s mental health as one care partner states:
…the alternative would have been [EBRT]… her symptoms of depression are she gets very, very tired… so intuitively our reaction to [TARGIT-IORT] was… actually quite a good idea. (P24)
Going through a cancer diagnosis and receiving treatment was clearly an emotional time. One participant was impressed with TARGIT-IORT precisely because the efficient delivery of radiotherapy facilitates her moving on quickly:
…the beauty of intraoperative radiotherapy is that I could say ‘OK, been there, done that, move on. (P9)
Convenience of performing TARGIT-IORT during surgery is valued
Most participants from the TARGIT-IORT cohort shared why they preferred to receive radiotherapy at the same time as the surgery. There is a recognition of the convenience that TARGIT-IORT brings as a result of not having to attend hospital on multiple occasions, for example, less travel and car parking and supporting independence (particularly for retired individuals):
It’s my choice to have [TARGIT-IORT] because I thought that it was a better option for me particularly because I live on my own and it would allow me to be more independent. (P18)
While the majority of participants were retired, those who did have young children felt TARGIT-IORT supports their caring responsibilities: ‘ I’ve got a [child] and I’ve got to look after him… This is a better way to go…’ (P14). Additionally, one retired participant who valued the independence TARGIT-IORT facilitated concluded it would also suit younger, busy, women well:
…particularly for younger women this would be an extremely good thing, if they're working, it allows them to get back to work without that constant interruption and if they've got a young family. (P18)
Many participants were able to draw from stories and experiences they had heard from friends and families. The apparent inconvenience and impact of daily radiotherapy doses discouraged patients from EBRT when TARGIT-IORT was presented as an option. One participant whose father received daily doses for prostate cancer felt she would ‘ rather get it all over in one go’ (P10). Similarly:
[TARGIT-IORT] was perfect, because it just meant I didn't have to queue up in the car park with the other poor people having radiotherapy, and I did have friends who had serious cancers who were having radiotherapy at the time, and it was just miserable. (P9)
There is also a perception that with TARGIT-IORT recovery times are likely to be faster since it would signify the end of their cancer treatment: ‘ I’m going to get [TARGIT-IORT] and it’s done’ (P16) and ‘ I can just then get on and recover’ (P4). Another participant summarises her main reasons for opting to receive TARGIT-IORT:
So, there were probably 3 reasons I went for [TARGIT-IORT]. You know, COVID, convenience, and the fact that I thought, you know, ultimately, I’d probably recover quicker. (P9)
Only one participant from the TARGIT-IORT cohort, a care partner, described a significant logistical impact due to his wife’s cancer treatment in general:
…created quite a challenge really for me, I mean, I was never going to moan about it, I wasn’t the one who just had cancer surgery! But you know, it meant the days suddenly got very challenging… (P25)
Perception TARGIT-IORT is a safer alternative to standard practice
Five participants felt that they did not experience any complications as a result of TARGIT-IORT and were able to resume their normal activities quickly. While there are a few cases of soreness and itchiness that participants specifically attributed to TARGIT-IORT, most participants did not report the range of side effects seen in the EBRT cohort. As a result, participants gave their endorsements for TARGIT-IORT, respectively:
I moved around, I got up, got changed, got dressed. It was surprising actually, this is why I’ve decided to do this, if this is what it gives you then everyone should have it. You know you don't need to feel debilitated, and you can carry on with your life. I've got a [child], and I've got to look after him. So, if you can, why not. This is a better way to go if the prognosis allows it. (P14) There were no, no after-effects, no problems. It all healed up very well, because it was quite a small incision anyway and very, very successful. (P28)
The majority of participants felt the procedure prevented healthy tissue and organs from being unnecessarily exposed to radiation because ‘ the radiotherapy is directed immediately where the lump [is]’ (P17).
I confess I heard that and thought ‘God, that’s a bloody good idea, why don’t they do that more often?’. Because obviously if you don’t have to beam through loads of flesh and muscle to get at what you're aiming for then that’s got to be better to be honest. (P24)
A few participants described side effects (soreness, tiredness), precautions (new bra needed, seatbelt cushion) and restrictions (no pressure, sport, lifting), however, they were unable to clearly attribute whether these were related to the surgery or the TARGIT-IORT procedure since both occur at the same time.
…yeah, my arm was a little bit sore…I’m sure it must have been the radiotherapy or the operation, I don’t know. (P29) …a special seat belt cushion that protects your breast from the seat belt and I had one another cushion under my breast supporting it… (P11)
Novel nature of TARGIT-IORT impresses while prompting early caution
Although it has been in use for the last 25 years since the first case was done in 1998 TARGIT-IORT is seen as novel and innovative with advantages acknowledged over EBRT. The decision to proceed with TARGIT-IORT is widely considered ‘ easy’ (P28) or ‘ intuitive’ (P24) or a ‘ no brainer’ (P4):
…well, you’re in there, so you might as well get on and do it and that would surely save the need for me having to come back, I can then just get on and recover basically…it was a no brainer for me, an absolute no brainer. (P4)
However, a few participants described their initial concerns since TARGIT-IORT was introduced by the consultants as a clinical trial and was largely unheard or ‘ unknown’ (P9). Care partners, often husbands and sometimes participants’ children wanted to carry out their own research to help making an informed decision about TARGIT-IORT. One participant had already felt she was convinced by the consultant’s explanation and the advantages over EBRT, however, her daughter, who worked in healthcare, stated ‘ …‘hold on a minute, we need to look at the statistics and the recovery times, side effects’…’ (P10). Similarly, another participant’s husband wanted an opportunity to ask the consultant more questions to help feel more reassured:
…but [care partner] just wanted to have the conversation around the intraoperative radiotherapy because it was an unknown really. (P9)
It should be noted that many of the participants were either themselves or their close family (eg, husband) highly educated, often with a science-based background and were able to explore clinical study papers and statistics: ‘ I’ve got a little statistical training…so I looked at the stats and what the mean variation was…what the levels of certitude at either end of the scale were…’ (P24).
TARGIT-IORT patients have high information needs
As mentioned above, due to the relative novelty of TARGIT-IORT and in the absence of experiences of TARGIT-IORT among participants’ friends and family, reliable information from trustworthy sources is critical. The majority of participants (in both EBRT and TARGIT-IORT cohorts) displayed high levels of trust in their consultant. Receiving adequate information from them about TARGIT-IORT, particularly due to its initial availability via a clinical trial, was appreciated:
I think what was good was the way that it was explained in the first place and what the pros and cons were, or if in fact, there weren't any cons really at all…So, you know, we were told that the treatment, doing it during the operation, is just as effective but it would mean that you would have no subsequent radiotherapy and, you know, of course I’m young and foolish, I assume that to be true, we trust the doctor… (P25) [The consultant] said’ ‘This is this, that is that…pluses and minus’…gone through pros and cons and I had made up my mind that that was a good way to go. (P14)
Working group members could relate closely to this subtheme of trust. They explained that the retrospective perception of TARGIT-IORT was always likely to be a ‘no brainer’, however, for a patient going through the highly emotionally charged process of receiving their diagnosis and treatment, at a time when they are already overwhelmed with new information, the relationship with the doctor is important:
…if it’s being offered to you, it’s important how it’s being offered to you. We put out trust in, so much, our doctors. (WG member)
Two participants described receiving explanations from radiation oncologists during their presurgery appointment, however, these discussions were not influential in helping to decide which type of radiotherapy they would receive. A few participants were wary of using the Internet to search for information related to their treatment options: ‘ I’m very cautious of what information I take in from Google’ (P4). However, the majority did conduct their own Internet searches to bolster their understanding of TARGIT-IORT:
I then went away and looked the bugger up, and then you could learn for yourself a little bit, reading between the technical stuff, what it’s all about, the success rate is there or there about the same, it’s not wonderful but for me, it was a no brainer. (P16)
The provision of information was discussed on a number of occasions by working group members. Simple and clear language is particularly important at a time when patients are already in a vulnerable, stressed and emotional state:
…you are so blindsided…the normal way you operate doesn’t necessarily apply. (WG member)
Working group members pointed to the need for information sources to be created adequately in the first place, for example, being written by patients/care partners who possess the lived experiences and so are able to elaborate on the areas that matter.
…there should never be a need for a patient to go home and want to Google, you should go home with the information in hand or go home with reputable evidence-based sources of information. (WG member)
The primary finding of this study is that the subjective experiences of patients and care partners receiving EBRT or TARGIT-IORT differ significantly. Strong recurring themes of appreciation and recognition of innovation, convenience, absence of side effects and lack of disruption to life have emerged from the TARGIT-IORT cohort while in the EBRT cohort, we have largely heard about discomfort and disruption to life. These themes—centring around (a) treatment procedure itself; (b) impact on QoL and (c) information needs—were presented to and were validated by a patient-led working group.
Patients and care partners involved in this study described numerous challenges, concerns and dissatisfaction with elements of the EBRT procedure while processing a difficult and emotional diagnosis. These findings are consistent with the existing literature on EBRT experience. 25 Probst et al 25 also identified procedural grievances, for instance, patients described the radiotherapy sessions as ‘dehumanising’, ‘emotionally draining’ and complained about the tattoos being a permanent reminder of the cancer. Previous studies exploring patient-perceived barriers to radiotherapy include patients’ fear surrounding radiation toxicity which can result in non-compliance and insufficient treatment. 13 40 In fact, research has identified that fears and anxiety regarding the EBRT experience can influence a patient’s decision to opt for a mastectomy over EBRT, despite the latter having equivalent if not non-inferior survival rates. 30 Several studies have demonstrated that as the distance from radiotherapy centre increases, the rate of mastectomy also increases. 41–45 Indeed, this was the primary patient-centric reason that the TARGIT-IORT procedure was originally conceived. 10–12 46
Our study demonstrates the need for improvements in the way EBRT is delivered and has implications for practice that extend to cases where patients are not eligible for TARGIT-IORT. In stark contrast, those receiving TARGIT-IORT have no awareness or recollection of the procedure since radiation is administered during surgery. Patients and care partners found this feature particularly appealing which contributed to their decision to opt for TARGIT-IORT. Indeed, TARGIT-IORT has been widely adopted elsewhere and treated 45 000 patients across 38 countries. 6
A high proportion of our EBRT cohort (12/15) received the FAST-Forward regimen. This regimen of highly compressed higher-dose-per-fraction radiotherapy was adopted in the UK even before the results of the FAST-Forward trial were published with the aim of reducing waiting time pressures during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognise this 5-day regimen is indeed not adopted elsewhere in the world—it has much higher toxicity—19 times higher fibrosis and a quarter of women reporting hardened breasts 3 and this toxicity is seen even with the short follow-up of the FAST-Forward trial. 47 48 It is noteworthy that a large part of the patient’s perceived benefit came from the immediacy of TARGIT-IORT due to its administration during the same anaesthetic as their lumpectomy, the resulting convenience and the absence of additional hospital visits for radiotherapy that would be otherwise required for EBRT. In our study, this benefit of TARGIT-IORT was perceived by patients even though the majority of the comparator group received EBRT over just 5 days rather than the international standard of 3 weeks. It is, therefore, likely that the contrasting experience of patients may have even higher significance and the perceived benefit may be greater when TARGIT-IORT is compared with 3 weeks of EBRT.
Patients in the study who received TARGIT-IORT had been given the option to have it because they fulfilled the eligibility criteria ( table 1 ). Since patients made a conscious choice, it is plausible that the results of this study could be biased favouring TARGIT-IORT. However, the authors of this study submit that patients should be given a choice. Our study shows that those who choose TARGIT-IORT have a positive perception of treatment and the overall experience is better than those who opted for EBRT. Others have shown that if given a choice between no radiotherapy, mastectomy, EBRT and TARGIT-IORT, 75% of patients preferentially choose TARGIT-IORT. 24
It is evident that QoL-related benefits and impacts are a central component of radiotherapy lived experiences. Compared with TARGIT-IORT, EBRT has a prolonged impact on patients and perhaps a compounded impact on QoL where patients live alone (lack emotional or practical support), do not drive (reliance on others or public transport with additional costs and travel time) or have caring responsibilities (partners, parents, children and pets). Travel and mobility issues have been recognised as barriers already 49 as has the inconvenience of a prolonged treatment plan which can affect those living in remote areas even more. 13 Our findings demonstrate the advantages TARGIT-IORT offers to those who are eligible. All participants in our study acknowledged the efficiency of the procedure with many drawn to the option (over EBRT) because it was considered ‘straightforward’ and ‘over-and-done’ during surgery. The benefits of TARGIT-IORT to patients in terms of cost, travel time and distance have been demonstrated, in principle, elsewhere. 49 50 Furthermore, the environmental and social impact of the substantially more travel required for EBRT, and a huge reduction in carbon footprint from cancer treatment by use of TARGIT-IORT has also been well documented. 20
In our study, inconveniences and logistical complications were exacerbated by EBRT side effects which were recognised as a key characteristic of the EBRT patient experience and have implications on QoL. Stanton et al 51 investigated factors affecting QoL during and after radiotherapy and found that functional impacts of treatment, particularly breast-specific pain (eg, mobility) are important correlates of QoL. In addition, Schnur et al 27 showed that key patient concerns include the timing of side effects and the impact of side effects on self-esteem affecting patients’ perception of being attractive, good workers, patients and parents. Another study supports these findings and also shares one case of such extreme physical discomfort (pain, burning, etc) that the patient admitted she had considered ending treatment and another saying she would never choose to have radiotherapy again due to the burning sensation. 28 Our study has captured similar cases. This study also underscores the emotional toll, anxieties and stresses that disruptions to life (eg, work-related) cause and have been heard at a NICE Committee meeting. 52 There were fewer reports of side effects directly attributed to TARGIT-IORT in our findings. This is consistent with a study comparing TARGIT-IORT with EBRT (quantitatively) in which patients receiving TARGIT-IORT also reported less pain, fewer breast, and arm symptoms, and better everyday functioning when compared with patients receiving EBRT. 14 We recognise that our study has found stark differences in patient experience and perception between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT. This can seem obvious because patients with TARGIT-IORT have almost no poor experience in relation to actually receiving the treatment (mainly because they are under general anaesthetic when it is given). Our findings resonate with others who also report the negative patient experiences with EBRT and have suggested interventions to improve them. 25 The important qualitative patient benefits identified in this study are of course in addition to the quantitatively proven significant reduction in non-breast cancer deaths, and an improved overall survival in patients with grade 1 and grade 2 cancers within the randomised TARGIT-A trial. 7 However, our study does detect apparent patient obscurity between surgery-linked or TARGIT-IORT-linked side effects—this clearly needs to be addressed through appropriate education and adequate information provision.
Results from our study cohorts point to the need for improvements in communication and information provision. The role of high-quality communication by healthcare staff and access to emotional support services, particularly when radiotherapy treatment ends has been highlighted already. 26 Previous research has also identified that patients can often feel mystified by radiotherapy (EBRT), how it works and will have anxieties about life and health after radiotherapy 27 or feel disempowered and lacking the ability to make an informed choice. 25 In our study, working group members emphasised the importance of trust in connection with information provision, particularly during an emotional cancer diagnosis. Members felt a number of study findings could be addressed adequately by effectively communicating the right information at the right time. Examples include letting participants know clearly that tattoos will be permanent; what the immediate and long-term side effects of both radiotherapy types are; understanding the side effects of surgery thereby avoiding confusion with TARGIT-IORT; ensuring TARGIT-IORT explanations are always supplemented with lay language overviews of the efficacy and safety profile compared with EBRT. One study showed that more than 90% of patients felt that if they were more informed about radiotherapy, they would be less scared about it. 30 The working group advocated for any shared information, such as leaflets, to be written by patients, that is, those who have experiences of receiving radiotherapy, and therefore, have an awareness of where there are likely to be challenges in understanding treatments and their impacts clearly. Similarly, considerations also ought to be given to ensuring people with learning disabilities and communication difficulties are able to make an informed choice by developing accessible information. To satisfy ‘valid consent’, doctors in the UK are now obliged to follow the new GMC guidelines underlining the essential nature of adequate patient information, 53 about all proven treatment options, even if they are not available at their own centre. In the UK, this powerful principle is now fully enshrined in law (Montgomery vs Lancashire Health Board, 2015). 54 55 The substantially better patient perception and experience documented in this study need to be included during consultations with patients when discussing treatment options before they have their surgery for breast cancer.
This qualitative study, co-led by patients, uncovered detailed lived experiences of receiving either EBRT or TARGIT-IORT from patients treated for early breast cancer, as well as those of their care partners. The research demonstrated a patient-perceived superiority of TARGIT-IORT over EBRT—it is considered more efficient with less disruption to life routines. The paper also illustrates the importance of provision of accessible information about all radiotherapy treatment options from trusted sources, at the right time (before breast cancer surgery), to reduce initial anxieties and help patients make informed choices. These new insights need to be taken together with the established quantitative survival and QoL benefits of TARGIT-IORT over EBRT. We believe that these deep insights into the patient’s perspective will substantially improve our understanding of the lived experiences of patients with breast cancer and will help clinicians, patients and policy-makers to comprehensively consider how access to better treatments can improve patients’ lives.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication.
Not applicable.
Ethics approval
This study involves human participants and was approved by Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee B (HSC REC B), Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI). IRAS Project ID number: 320976. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the patients and care partners who volunteered to help in development of the research question, helping design the study and outcome measures. The authors thank patients and care partners (the study participants) who volunteered to participate in this study. We are grateful to them for giving up their time and sharing their treatment experiences and valuable insights during a difficult period in their lives for the benefit of science and clinical research.
- Bentzen SM ,
- Agrawal RK ,
- Aird EGA , et al
- Correa C , et al
- Murray Brunt A ,
- Haviland JS ,
- Wheatley DA , et al
- Vaidya JS ,
- Bulsara M ,
- Wenz F , et al
- Vaidya UJ ,
- Baum M , et al
- Bulsara M , et al
- Joseph DJ ,
- Tobias JS , et al
- Wang JS , et al
- Sperk E , et al
- Saunders CM , et al
- Keshtgar MRS ,
- Williams NR ,
- Andersen KG ,
- Gärtner R ,
- Kroman N , et al
- Hofmann F ,
- Blank E , et al
- Coombs NJ ,
- Coombs JM ,
- Vaidya UJ , et al
- Alvarado MD ,
- Conolly J ,
- Park C , et al
- Saunders C , et al
- Saunders CM ,
- Bulsara MK , et al
- Beattie G , et al
- Rosbottom K ,
- Crank H , et al
- Llewellyn A ,
- Schnur JB ,
- Ouellette SC ,
- Bovbjerg DH , et al
- Dilorenzo TA , et al
- Williams F ,
- Jeanetta SC
- Shaverdian N ,
- Kishan AU ,
- Veruttipong D , et al
- Murchison SC ,
- DeVries KJ ,
- Hickok JT ,
- Morrow GR ,
- Roscoe JA , et al
- Hopwood P ,
- Mills J , et al
- Pickles K ,
- Nickel B , et al
- Sainsbury P ,
- Guidolin K ,
- Brackstone M
- Nattinger AB
- Nattinger AB ,
- Kneusel RT ,
- Hoffmann RG , et al
- Chandwani S ,
- Haffty BG , et al
- Adams-Cameron M ,
- Hunt WC , et al
- Celaya MO ,
- Gibson JJ , et al
- Chinoy RF , et al
- Vogt K , et al
- Bargallo-Rocha JE ,
- Soto-Perez-de-Celis E ,
- Picó-Guzmán FJ , et al
- Stanton AL ,
- Krishnan L ,
- (NICE) NIfHaCE
- General Medical Council U
- Mansell J ,
- ↵ Montgomery v Lanarkshire health board , 2015 . Available : https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf
X @jsvaidya
Contributors SKB, NS, CH, ME-O'C, SF, DW and RW were responsible for the study concept and design. SL and GL identified patients who met the eligibility criteria. SL, GL and JSV contributed to the study design. GL posted cover letters and recruitment adverts to all identified patients. SKB, NS and JR collected the data. SKB and NS analysed and conducted the thematic analysis from the data. ME-O'C, SF, DW and RW approved the initial report. SKB and CH wrote the first draft of this manuscript. JSV and all other authors were involved in interpreting the data and made substantial contributions to the intellectual content of the manuscript and approved the final version. The authors took full responsibility for the manuscript. SKB is responsible for the overall content (as guarantor).
Funding The study was sponsored by MediPaCe. Unrestricted funding was provided to MediPaCe by Carl Zeiss Medtech AG. The manufacturers of the Intrabeam device (Carl Zeiss Medtech AG) did not have any part in concept, design, or management of the study, or in data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. A grant/award number was not issued for the funder.
Competing interests This qualitative study was initiated by MediPaCe, a patient engagement and patient research company. The manufacturers of the TARGIT-IORT device (Carl Zeiss Medtech AG) did not have any part in concept, design, or management of the study, or in data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Authors SKB, NS, CH and JR are employed at MediPaCe. MediPaCe received payment to independently plan, coordinate and conduct this study. JSV declares Support from University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/ UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, HTA, NIHR, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, Department of Health and Social Care, UK Ninewells Cancer Campaign and Cancer Research Campaign (now Cancer Research UK); Research grant from Photoelectron Corp (1996–1999) and for supporting data management at the University of Dundee (Dundee, UK, 2004–2008) and travel reimbursements and honorariums from Carl Zeiss. SL and GL declare no conflicts of interest.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
![](http://ustaliy.fun/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Learn what qualitative research design is, how it differs from quantitative research, and what types and methods are used to explore complex phenomena and meanings. Find out the key steps and best practices for conducting qualitative research effectively.
Qualitative research is a type of research that collects and analyzes non-numerical data to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. Learn about the approaches, methods, and analysis of qualitative research with examples and tips.
While many books and articles guide various qualitative research methods and analyses, there is currently no concise resource that explains and differentiates among the most common qualitative approaches. We believe novice qualitative researchers, students planning the design of a qualitative study or taking an introductory qualitative research course, and faculty teaching such courses can ...
Qualitative research design is defined as a systematic and flexible approach to conducting research that focuses on understanding and interpreting the complexity of human phenomena. Unlike quantitative research, which seeks to measure and quantify variables, qualitative research is concerned with exploring the underlying meanings, patterns, and ...
Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems.[1] Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervening or introducing treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypothenar to further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences ...
Qualitative research is a methodology that explores and understands people's beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through non-numerical data. It involves various methods, such as interviews, focus groups, ethnographic studies, text analysis, and more, and uses different analysis methods, such as thematic analysis, content analysis, discourse analysis, and grounded theory analysis.
Qualitative research is the naturalistic study of social meanings and processes, using interviews, observations, and the analysis of texts and images. In contrast to quantitative researchers, whose statistical methods enable broad generalizations about populations (for example, comparisons of the percentages of U.S. demographic groups who vote in particular ways), qualitative researchers use ...
Abstract. This guide explains the focus, rigor, and relevance of qualitative research, highlighting its role in dissecting complex social phenomena and providing in-depth, human-centered insights. The guide also examines the rationale for employing qualitative methods, underscoring their critical importance. An exploration of the methodology ...
Qualitative research is a type of research that collects and analyses non-numerical data to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. Learn about the approaches, methods, and analysis techniques of qualitative research with examples and tips.
Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research. Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research, which involves collecting and ...
Qualitative research is defined as "the study of the nature of phenomena", including "their quality, different manifestations, ... In the convergent parallel design, a qualitative study is conducted in parallel to and independently of a quantitative study, and the results of both studies are compared and combined at the stage of ...
Qualitative research is a methodology that focuses on non-numerical data to understand human behavior, experiences, and perspectives. It uses methods such as observations, interviews, focus groups, and ethnography to collect and analyze data.
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.
Learn how to design a research strategy using empirical data. Compare different types of research design, such as qualitative and quantitative, and choose the best approach for your question.
Qualitative research design is continually evolving. It is not only more established in disciplines beyond the traditional social sciences in which it is a standard choice, but also just as impacted by the changes in what data, technologies, and approaches researchers are using. This Handbook takes readers through the foundational theories ...
Qualitative research is a type of research that aims to gather and analyse non-numerical (descriptive) data in order to gain an understanding of individuals' social reality, including understanding their attitudes, beliefs, and motivation. This type of research typically involves in-depth interviews, focus groups, or observations in order to collect data that is rich in detail and context.
Learn how to design a qualitative project that creates understanding from data as the analysis proceeds. Explore the levels, goals, and strategies of qualitative research design, and how to plan and pace your study.
Qualitative research is defined as an exploratory method that aims to understand complex phenomena, often within their natural settings, by examining subjective experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical measurements and statistical analysis, qualitative research employs a range of ...
Qualitative research is a process of naturalistic inquiry that seeks an in-depth understanding of social phenomena within their natural setting. It focuses on the "why" rather than the "what" of social phenomena and relies on the direct experiences of human beings as meaning-making agents in their every day lives.
Qualitative research is a methodology to gain deep contextual understandings of users via non-numerical means and direct observations. Learn how to use qualitative research methods such as interviews, usability testing and user observation to expose hidden truths about users and guide better designs.
Qualitative research seeks to understand people's experiences and perspectives by studying social organizations and human behavior. Data in qualitative studies focuses on people's beliefs and emotional responses. Qualitative data is especially helpful when a company wants to know how customers feel about a product or service, such as in ...
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being "qualitative," the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term "qualitative." Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered ...
Qualitative research is fundamentally about understanding the experiences and perspectives of individuals in depth. It focuses on subjective narratives and often employs methods like interviews, focus groups, and observations. ... This helps guide your research design. Select Methodology: Choose appropriate methods for data collection, such as ...
In this 2.5-hour Designing Qualitative Research for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) e-course, you will learn how to design and plan for a rigorous qualitative study or routine monitoring activity using the step-by-step guidance provided by the Qualitative Inquiry Planning Sheet (QuIPS). After completing this course, you will be able to:
This paper briefly outlines the co-design process undertaken during a COVID-19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co-design process. Setting and Participants: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff ...
Objective To gather a deep qualitative understanding of the perceived benefits and impacts of External-Beam RadioTherapy (EBRT) and TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) using Intrabeam to assess how the treatments affected patient/care partner experiences during their cancer treatment and beyond. Design and participants A patient-led working group was established to guide study ...