definition of qualitative research with citation

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 May 30th, 2024 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm Green Library - SVA Conference Room 125
Next: Choose an approach >>
Choose an approach
Find studies
Learn methods
Get software
Get data for secondary analysis
Network with researchers

Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 10:41 AM
URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/qualitative_research

Technical Support
Find My Rep

The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research

Norman K. Denzin - University of Illinois, Urbana - Champaign, USA
Yvonna S. Lincoln - Texas A&M University, USA
Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

New contributors offer 19 completely new chapter topics , including indigenous methodologies, methodologies in an age of new technologies, queer/quare theory, ethnodrama, data and its problematics, triangulation, collaborative inquiry, digital ethnography, the global audit culture, and much more.
Substantial revisions from returning authors provide reinvigorated content resulting in very different chapters.
Content on a wide range of key topics, diverse perspectives, and current controversies derived from members of an international and interdisciplinary editorial board ensure the timeliest revision.
Six classic chapters cover topics from paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, to performance ethnography, writing as a method of inquiry, strategies for composition, and creating narratives and research reports.
Contributions from well-known international scholars allow readers to study the differences in approach among European, Australian, and American practitioners and theoreticians, as well as to hear the voices of non-Western authors.
Coverage of state-of-the-art t opics include critical social science, critical pedagogy, mixed methods, narrative inquiry, qualitative research and technology, online ethnography, oral history, human rights, disability communities, queer theory, and performance ethnography.
Discussions on a wide range of methods expand the reader's repertoire of methodologies, enlarging the range of data that can be brought to bear on social and educational issues.

Sample Materials & Chapters

Select a purchasing option.

Shipped Options:

BUNDLE: Denzin: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research 5E + Plano Clark: Mixed Methods Research

1 Introduction

Patricia Leavy Independent Scholar Kennebunk, ME, USA

Published: 01 July 2014
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter serves as the introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research . The first half of the chapter responds to two questions. First, the chapter addresses the question: What is qualitative research? In answering the question, the chapter reviews the major elements of research: paradigm, ontology, epistemology (which together form the philosophical basis of research), genre, methods, theory, methodology (which operate at the level of praxis), ethics, values, and reflexivity (which merge the philosophical and praxis dimensions of research). Second, the chapter addresses the question: Who are qualitative researchers? Leavy explains qualitative research as a form of bricolage and qualitative researchers as bricoleurs. The remainder of the chapter reviews the contents of the handbook, providing a chapter by chapter summary.

We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. – T. S. Eliot

I open the introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research with the preceding quote for two reasons. First, it captures the essence of qualitative inquiry as a way of understanding, describing, explaining, unraveling, illuminating, chronicling, and documenting social life—which includes attention to the everyday, to the mundane and ordinary, as much as the extraordinary. Qualitative research can involve the study of others, but also the self and the complex relationships between, within, and among people and groups, including our own entanglements. The second reason I have begun with this quote is because it opens Laurel Richardson’s book Fields of Play: Constructing an Academic Life (1997) . This is one of my favorite books, and, in it, Richardson expands the way we think of ourselves as researchers, writers, and knowers. What I intend to do by way of sharing this is to locate myself within the field and within this text—this is something that many qualitative researchers aim to do, in various ways. In qualitative research, we are not outside of our projects, but located and shifting within them. Qualitative research is an engaged way of building knowledge about the social world and human experience, and qualitative researchers are enmeshed in their projects.

What Is Qualitative Research?

Science is a conversation between rigor and imagination. ( Abbott, 2004 , p. 3)

Qualitative research is a way of learning about social reality. Qualitative approaches to research can be used across the disciplines to study a wide array of topics. In the social and behavioral sciences, these approaches to research are often used to explore, describe, or explain social phenomenon; unpack the meanings people ascribe to activities, situations, events, or artefacts; build a depth of understanding about some aspect of social life; build “thick descriptions” (see Clifford Geertz, 1973 ) of people in naturalistic settings; explore new or underresearched areas; or make micro–macro links (illuminate connections between individuals–groups and institutional and/or cultural contexts).

Qualitative research itself is an umbrella term for a rich array of research practices and products. Qualitative research is an expansive and continually evolving methodological field that encompasses a wide range of approaches to research, as well as multiple perspectives on the nature of research itself. It has been argued that qualitative research developed in an interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, or counterdisciplinary field ( Denzin & Lincoln, 1998 ; Jovanic, 2011 ; Lorenz, 2010 ). This approach to inquiry is unique, in part because of its philosophical and methodological diversity, as well as because of the value system guiding research practice.

The diversity of the qualitative landscape, as well as the gestalt of qualitative practice, is also partly attributable to the context in which qualitative research developed. Chapter 2 in this handbook looks much more fully at the historical development of qualitative research, but I would like to briefly note the period of growth in the 1960s and 1970s because it bears directly on the richness of contemporary qualitative practice. 2

Although there were many pivotal works published prior to the 1960s, the social justice movements of the 1960s and 1970s—the civil rights, women’s, gay rights, and peace movements—culminated in major changes in the academic landscape, including the asking of new research questions and the reframing of many previously asked research questions and corresponding approaches to research. These movements in essence became sites for new ways of thinking and led to the critique of dominant methods of scientific practice, many of which relied on positivism ( Jovanic, 2011 ). There was a drive to include people historically excluded from social research or included in ways that reinforced stereotypes and justified relations of oppression, and researchers became more cognizant of power within the research process ( Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 ). A couple of decades later, interdisciplinary area studies that developed in the context of critique—women’s studies, African-American studies, Chicana/Chicano studies—began emerging across academic institutions.

Because of the sociohistorical conditions in which it developed, the qualitative tradition can be characterized by its multiplicity of approaches to research as well as by its focus on the uses to which that research might be put . In this vein, there is a social justice undercurrent to qualitative practice, one that may be implicit or explicit depending on the positioning and goals of the practitioner and the project at hand.

Many qualitative researchers define qualitative research by comparing it to quantitative research. I myself have done this. However, instead of describing what something is by explaining what it isn’t, I focus on a discussion of the qualitative tradition as understood on its own merits. 3 One way of understanding qualitative research is by considering the key dimensions of any research practice and discussing them in terms of qualitative practice.

The Elements of Research

The main dimensions of research can be categorized under three general categories: philosophical, praxis, and ethics. The philosophical substructure of research consists of three elements: paradigm, ontology, and epistemology. At the level of praxis there are four key elements of research: genre, methods, theory, and methodology. The ethical compass (which combines philosophical and praxis dimensions) includes three main elements: ethics, values, and reflexivity (see Table 1.1 ).

The Philosophical Substructure of Qualitative Research

A range of beliefs guide research practice—beliefs about how research should proceed, what can be known, who can be a knower, and how we come to know. Together, these beliefs form the philosophical substructure of research and inform all aspects of the research from topic selection to research design to the final representation and dissemination of the research findings and all phases in between.

A paradigm is a worldview through which knowledge is filtered ( Kuhn, 1962 ). In other words, it is an overarching perspective that guides the research process. I think of paradigms as sunglasses, with different color lenses. When you put a pair on, it influences everything you see. Qualitative research is multiparadigmatic, with researchers working from different worldviews (such as post-positivism, interpretivism, and critical orientations), which makes it a highly diverse field of inquiry.

An ontology is a philosophical belief system about the nature of social reality, including what we can learn about this reality and how we can do so. In their classic definition, Egon Guba and Yvonna Lincoln explained the ontological question as: “What is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it?” (1998, p. 201). Qualitative researchers adopt a perspective that suggests knowledge building is viewed as generative and process-oriented. The truth is not absolute and ready to be “discovered” by “objective” researchers, but rather it is contingent, contextual, and multiple ( Saldaña, 2011 ). Subjectivity is acknowledged and valued. Objectivity may be redefined and achieved through the owning and disclosing of one’s values system, not disavowing it ( Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 ).

If the ontological question is “What can be known?” then the epistemological question is “Who can be a knower?” An epistemology is a philosophical belief system about how research proceeds as an embodied activity, how one embodies the role of researcher, and the relationship between the researcher and research participants ( Guba & Lincoln, 1998 ; Harding, 1987 ; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004 ; 2011 ). Qualitative researchers work from many different epistemological positions. Researchers may work individually or as a part of a team with their participants in the co-creation of knowledge. From this perspective, researchers are not considered neutral or objective in the traditional sense. Rather, researchers acknowledge how their personal, professional, and political commitments influence all aspects of their research. Researchers are considered instruments in qualitative research ( Bresler, 2005 ; Saldaña, 2011 ). Research participants are valued and positioned as knowledge bearers and co-creators. This position rejects a hierarchical structure between the researcher and research participants or the idea that the researcher is the sole authority.

Together, the ontological and epistemological belief systems guiding the research practice serves as the philosophical basis or substructure of any research practice ( Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 ). Although a researcher’s ontological and epistemological positions can vary across qualitative projects and may be influenced by a range of other factors, including theoretical and personal commitments, generally, qualitative researchers seek to build partial and contextualized truths in collaboration with their research participants or through reflexive engagement with their research texts.

Praxis: Approaches, Methods, and Theories in Action

Praxis is the doing of research—the practice of research. Approaches, methods, and theories come into being during praxis, as researchers build projects and execute on them, often making adjustments along the way.

Genres of research are overarching categories for different ways of approaching research ( Saldaña, 2011 ). Each genre lends itself to studying particular kinds of topics and includes a range of commonly used methods of data collection, analysis, and representation. Frequently used research genres include but are not limited to field research, interview, grounded theory, unobtrusive approaches, participatory research, community-based research, arts-based research, internet research, and multimethod and mixed-method approaches. This is not an exhaustive list. The genre within which a researcher works is motivated by a combination of factors, including the research topic, the research question(s), his or her methodological preferences and experiences, and the intended audience(s) for the research, as well as by a range of pragmatic considerations such as funding, time, and the researcher’s previous experience, skills, and personal preferences.

Research methods are tools for data collection. Research methods commonly used in qualitative practice include but are not limited to ethnography, autoethnography, duoethnography, narrative inquiry, in-depth interview, semistructured interview, focus group interview, oral history, document analysis, content analysis, historical-comparative methods, poetic inquiry, audiovisual methods, visual methods, photo-voice, case study, multiple case study, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, daily diary research, program evaluation, ethnodrama, ethnotheatre, ethnocinema, play building, and fiction-based research. As you can see, qualitative researchers use a range of tools for data collection. Research methods are selected because they are the best tools to gather the data sought for a particular study. The selection of research methods should be made in conjunction with the research question(s) and purpose or objective. In other words, depending on the research topic and how the research questions are framed, as well as more pragmatic issues such as access to participants or textual/preexisting data sources, time, and practical skills, researchers are guided to particular methods.

Each genre discussed earlier lends itself to the use of particular methods. For example, the genre of arts-based research lends itself to the use of ethnodrama, ethnotheatre, ethnocinema, play building, fiction-based research, poetic inquiry, audiovisual methods, photo-voice, or visual methods. The genre of interview research lends itself to the use of in-depth interview, semistructured interview, focus group interview, or oral history. Of course, these genres are all more complicated in practice. For example, discourse analysis is a method that may be employed in an interview study, document analysis, or narrative inquiry. Furthermore, depending on the context in which one employs a method, such as narrative inquiry, one might view it as an arts-based approach, interview approach, way of doing autoethnography, or a method of analysis. The intent is not to confuse matters but, given how large and diffuse the field of qualitative research is and the variety of ways that methods can be creatively employed, it is important to understand that you may come across these terms conceptualized in various ways in the literature. One of the reasons that methods can be conceptualized and employed in many different ways is because qualitative researchers also draw on multiple theories.

A theory is an account of social reality that is grounded in empirical data but extends beyond that data. Numerous theoretical perspectives may guide the research process, including but not limited to post-positivism, interpretive, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, social constructionism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, feminism, intersectionality theory, queer theory, and critical race theory. This is also not an exhaustive list and in most instances each of these theoretical perspectives are general categories for a range of more specific theories. A qualitative research study may also yield the development of a new theory. In these instances, theory develops inductively out of the research process. In other words, the study generates data out of which a theory is built—that theory is grounded in the empirical data from that study but extends beyond that data and can be applied to other situations.

A methodology is plan for how research will proceed—combining methods and theory. The methodology is what the researcher actually does once he or she has combined the different elements of research. The methodology is informed by the philosophical beliefs guiding the research, the selection of research methods, and the use of theory. One’s attention to ethics and their corresponding values system also influences how a study is designed and how methods are employed. Although two studies may use the same research method—for instance, a focus group interview—the researchers’ methodologies may be completely different. In other words, how they proceed with the research, based not only on their data collection tool but also on how they conceive of the use of that tool and thus structure the study, determines their methodology. The level of moderation and/or control a researcher exhibits during focus group interviews can vary greatly. Methodologies are not standardized nor are they typically etched in stone. Not only will methodological approaches to research vary across projects, but, even within a particular project, methodologies are often viewed as flexible and malleable. A qualitative researcher might adjust his or her methodology over the course of a project to facilitate new learning or new insights or to adapt to unanticipated challenges, obstacles, or opportunities. The malleability of qualitative methodologies is a strength of this approach to knowledge generation.

It is important to note that although I have reviewed methods for data collection as a part of methodology, there are also methods or strategies for qualitative data analysis, interpretation, representation, and dissemination of research findings. Similar to data collection tools and theories, these too are diverse, making the methodological possibilities rich.

Ethics: Beliefs and Practices

Ethics is an area that bridges the philosophical and praxis aspects of research. Ethics play a central role in any research practice. Typically, when we think about ethics in social research, particularly when working with human subjects, we are referring to issues such as preventing harm to the people or settings involved in the study, avoiding exploitation of research participants (with added attention in the case of vulnerable populations), disclosure of the nature of the study and how the findings will be used, the voluntary nature of participation, and confidentiality. Additionally, qualitative researchers have an ethical obligation to carefully consider how research participants are portrayed and to act sensitively.

Additional ethical issues are linked to a researcher’s ontological, epistemological, and practical imperatives, which together form a researcher’s values system. For instance, the real-world value or public usefulness of the research, the inclusion of underrepresented populations, the treatment of anomalous or contradictory data, and the way that the research findings are distributed to relevant stakeholders—these issues are also connected to ethical practice.

Reflexivity is also a core concept in the qualitative community and refers to one’s attention to how power and bias come to bear during all phases of the research. As D. Soyini Madison suggests, reflexivity is about “the politics of positionality” and acknowledging our power, privileges, and biases throughout the research process (2005, p. 6). The social justice imperative of many qualitative projects is a driver of reflexivity, as are critical and power-sensitive theoretical traditions. I suggest reflexivity is both a philosophical perspective and a way of doing or acting within the context of research, from start to finish (see Table 1.2 ).

Given the wide range of approaches, tools, and values that guide qualitative research, it is a rich and evolving tradition with innumerable possibilities for knowledge building and knowledge sharing. Researchers can build, craft, or construct many different kinds of projects to study a nearly limitless range of topics. For these reasons, many consider qualitative research a craft or form of bricolage.

Who Are Qualitative Researchers?

We are all interpretive bricoleurs stuck in the present working against the past as we move into a politically charged and challenging future. ( Norman K. Denzin, 2010 , p. 15)

The qualitative researcher can be thought of as a bricoleur—someone who comfortably draws on multiple bodies of scholarship, methods, and theories to do her or his work. The term bricoleur is attributed to Levi-Strauss (1966) ; however, Denzin and Lincoln popularized applying the term to the work of qualitative researchers. Thomas A. Schwandt (2001) writes:

As a bricoleur , the qualitative inquirer is capable of donning multiple identities—researcher, scientist, artist, critic, and performer—and engaging in different kinds of bricolage that consist of particular configurations of (or ways of relating) various fragments of inherited methodologies, methods, empirical materials, perspectives, understandings, ways of presentation, situated responsiveness, and so on into a coherent, reasoned approach to a research situation and problem. The bricolage appears to vary depending on one’s allegiance to different notions of interpretation, understanding, representation, and so on drawn from various intellectual and practice traditions. (p. 20) Table 1.2 Summary of key elements of research Element . Philosophical or Praxis . Definition . Paradigm Philosophical Guiding worldview Ontology Philosophical The nature of social reality and what can be known about it Epistemology Philosophical The role of the researcher and researcher/participant relationship Genres Praxis Categories of ways of approaching research Methods Praxis Tools for data collection Theory Praxis Account of social reality that extends beyond data Methodology Praxis A plan for how research will proceed (combining methods, theory, and ethics) Ethics Philosophical and Praxis How one engages with, informs, and protects participants Values System Philosophical and Praxis Usefulness and distribution to the public, inclusion of underrepresented groups Reflexivity Philosophical and Praxis Attention to power, bias, and researcher positionality Element . Philosophical or Praxis . Definition . Paradigm Philosophical Guiding worldview Ontology Philosophical The nature of social reality and what can be known about it Epistemology Philosophical The role of the researcher and researcher/participant relationship Genres Praxis Categories of ways of approaching research Methods Praxis Tools for data collection Theory Praxis Account of social reality that extends beyond data Methodology Praxis A plan for how research will proceed (combining methods, theory, and ethics) Ethics Philosophical and Praxis How one engages with, informs, and protects participants Values System Philosophical and Praxis Usefulness and distribution to the public, inclusion of underrepresented groups Reflexivity Philosophical and Praxis Attention to power, bias, and researcher positionality Open in new tab

Qualitative researchers may draw on scientific, humanistic, artistic, and other disciplinary forms. In this regard, qualitative research can be viewed as a scholarly, practical, and creative pursuit. Researchers need to be able to think analytically, symbolically, imaginatively, and metaphorically ( Saldaña, 2011 ). Moreover, projects often demand innovation, creativity, intuition, flexibility, and responsiveness (adapting to new learning or practical problems). This is a rigorous and often labor-intensive process. Qualitative research commonly requires working with others over an expanse of time and producing large amounts of data for analysis while also demanding sustained attention to ethics and values. It is also a creative process—allowing researchers to experiment, play, adapt, learn, and grow along the way.

Of course, pragmatic considerations come into play when designing a project: funding, time, access to needed participants or textual/preexisting data sources, and the researcher’s previous experience, skills, and personal preferences. Unfortunately, qualitative researchers are more often limited by practical issues than by their imaginative capabilities.

Despite these challenges, qualitative research is also a deeply rewarding process that may result in new learning about topics of import, increased self-awareness, the forging of meaningful relationships between co-creators of knowledge, the production of public scholarship, and the impetus for social change.

The Contents of This Handbook

As noted in the preface, no handbook can be all things to all people. It’s impossible to cover the entire field, and so I have approached the content with practicality in mind: what one learning about and/or embarking on qualitative research most needs to know, peppered with advanced material and prospective reviews intended to be of value to even the most experienced researchers.

Part 1 of this handbook, “The Qualitative Tradition,” offers a historical review of the field. Specifically, Part 1 presents an overview of the history of qualitative research in the social sciences and the ethical substructure of qualitative research practice.

In Chapter 2 , “Historical Overview of Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences,” Svend Brinkmann, Michael Hviid Jacobsen, and Søren Kristiansen provide a detailed history of qualitative research in the social sciences. As they note, this history is a complicated task because there is no agreed-upon version but rather a variety of perspectives. Accordingly, these authors present six histories of qualitative research: the conceptual history, the internal history, the marginalizing history, the repressed history, the social history, and the technological history. They also suggest that writing about history is necessarily tied up with writing about the future and thus conclude their contribution with a vision of the field. In Chapter 3 , “The History of Historical-Comparative Methods in Sociology,” Chares Demetriou and Victor Roudometof present an overview of the historical trajectory of comparative-historical sociology while considering the development of specific methodological approaches. Next is Anna Traianou’s chapter, “The Centrality of Ethics in Qualitative Research.” Attention to the ethical substructure of research is central to any qualitative practice and thus is given priority as the closing chapter in Part 1 . Traianou details the main ethical issues in qualitative practice, bearing in mind the changing sociohistorical climate in which research is carried out.

Part 2 of this handbook, “Approaches to Qualitative Research,” presents an array of philosophical approaches to qualitative research (all of which have implications for research praxis). Because qualitative research is a diverse tradition, it is impossible to adequately cover all of the approaches researchers may adopt. Nevertheless, Part 2 provides both an overview of the key approaches to qualitative research and detailed reviews of several commonly used approaches.

Part 2 opens with Renée Spencer, Julia M. Pryce, and Jill Walsh’s chapter, “Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research,” which provides a general view of the philosophical approaches that typically guide qualitative practice. They review post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory and offer a brief history of these approaches, considering the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest, and they detail some of their distinguishing features. They also identify three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches.

After the overview in Chapter 5 , we turn to in-depth treatments of specific approaches to qualitative research. In Chapter 6 , “Applied Interpretive Approaches,” Sally E. Thorne turns to the applied world of qualitative practice. Thorne considers how many applied scholars have been departing from established method to articulate approaches better suited to the questions of the applied world. This chapter considers the evolving relationship between the methods and their disciplinary origins and current trends in the direction of the applied interpretive qualitative project. Interpretive description is used as a methodological case in point to illustrate the kinds of departures that applied approaches are taking from their theoretical roots as they begin to advance knowledge development within applied contexts.

Chapter 7 , “The Grounded Theory Method” by Antony Bryant, reviews grounded theory, which, as Bryant notes, is itself a somewhat misleading term because it actually refers to a method that facilitates the development of new theoretical insights. Bryant’s suggestion about the complexity of the term itself is duly noted because this chapter could easily have been placed in Part 3 of this handbook. However, because grounded theory can be used in conjunction with more than one method of data collection, I have placed it in Part 2 as an approach to research. This chapter provides background information about the development of grounded theory as well as its main features, procedures outputs, and evaluation criteria.

The final three chapters in Part 2 tackle power-sensitive or social justice approaches to qualitative research that have emerged in the context of activist and scholarly work. In Chapter 8 , “Feminist Qualitative Research: Toward Transformation of Science and Society,” Maureen C. McHugh offers an in-depth treatment of feminist qualitative research, described in terms of its purposes of addressing women’s lives, advocacy for women, analysis of gender oppression, and transformation of society. The chapter covers topics including the feminist critiques of social science research, the transformation of science from empiricism to post-modernism (including intersectionality and double consciousness), reflexivity, collaboration, power analysis, advocacy, validity, and voice. Several qualitative approaches to research are described in relation to feminist research goals, with illustrations of feminist research. In Chapter 9 , “Critical Approaches to Qualitative Research,” Kum-Kum Bhavnani, Peter Chua, and Dana Collins reflect on critical strategies in qualitative research and examine the meanings and debates associated with the term “critical.” The authors contrast liberal and dialectical notions and practices in relations to social analysis and qualitative research. The chapter also explores how critical social research may be synonymous with critical ethnography in relation to issues of power, positionality, representation, and the production of situated knowledges. It uses Bhavnani’s (1993) framework to draw on Dana Collin’s research as a specific case to suggest how the notion of the “critical” relates to ethnographic research practices: ensuring feminist and queer accountability, resisting reinscription, and integrating lived experience. In Chapter 10 , “Decolonizing Research Practice: Indigenous Methodologies, Aboriginal Methods, and Knowledge/Knowing,” Mike Evans, Adrian Miller, Peter Hutchinson, and Carlene Dingwall review Indigenous approaches to research that are fundamentally rooted in the traditions and knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples themselves. The authors suggest Indigenous methodologies and methods have become both systems for generating knowledge and ways of responding to the processes of colonization. They describe two approaches drawn from the work of two Indigenous scholars with their communities in Australia and Canada. They hope this work leads not only to better, more pertinent research that is well disseminated but also to improvement in the situations of Indigenous communities and peoples.

The third section of this handbook, “Narrative Inquiry, Field Research, and Interview Methods,” provides chapters on a range of methods for collecting data directly from people (groups or individuals) or by systematically observing people engaged in activities in natural settings.

Part 3 begins with Chapter 11 , “Practicing Narrative Inquiry,” by Arthur P. Bochner and Nicholas A. Riggs. Arguably, this is a chapter that could have appeared just as easily in Part 2 because narrative is as much an approach to research as a method, or in Part 4 because narrative inquiry can be employed in the context of text- or arts-based research, or even in Part 6 as an approach to analysis. This chapter focuses on the development of the turn toward narrative in the human sciences. The authors trace the rise of narrative inquiry as it evolved in the aftermath of the crisis of representation in the social sciences, locating the explosion of interest in stories and storytelling in changing population demographics and the debunking of venerable notions about scientific knowledge. They show how narrative inquiry offered an opportunity to humanize the human sciences, placing people, meaning, and personal identity at the center of inquiry; inviting the development of reflexive, relational, dialogic, and interpretive methodologies; and drawing attention to the need to focus not only on the actual but also on the possible and the good. The chapter attempts to synthesize the changing methodological orientations of qualitative researchers associated with narrative inquiry, as well as their ethical commitments. In the second half of the chapter, the focus shifts to the divergent standpoints of small-story and big-story researchers; the differences between narrative analysis and narratives-under-analysis; and various narrative practices that seek to help people form better relationships, overcome oppressive canonical identities, amplify or reclaim moral agency, and cope better with contingencies and difficulties experienced over the course of life.

Chapter 12 , “Ethnography,” by Anthony Kwame Harrison, presents a new take on a classic method of qualitative research. Embracing the trope of ethnography-as-narrative, this chapter uses the mythic story of Bronislaw Malinowski’s—the reputed “founding father” of the ethnographic approach—early career and fieldwork as a vehicle through which to explore key aspects of ethnography’s history and development into a distinct form of qualitative research. Through a series of intervallic steps—in and out of Malinowski’s path from Poland to the “Cambridge School” and eventually to the western Pacific—Harrison traces the legacy of ethnography to its current position as a critical, historically informed, and unfailingly evolving research endeavor. Harrison suggests that, as a method continually reflected on and revised, ethnography is boundless.

In Chapter 13 , “The Purposes, Practices, and Principles of Autoethnographic Research,” Carolyn Ellis and Tony E. Adams define autoethnography according to their practice of the method, and they describe its history and emergence within qualitative social research and within psychology. They propose general guiding principles for those seeking to do autoethnography, such as using personal experience, acknowledging existing research, understanding and critiquing cultural experience, using insider knowledge, breaking silence, and maneuvering through pain, confusion, anger, and uncertainty. They present autoethnography as a process and as a product, one that can take a variety of representational forms. After offering ways to evaluate and critique autoethnography, they conclude with a discussion of autoethnography as an orientation to the living of life and an approach that has the potential of making life better—for the writer, reader, participant, and larger culture.

Switching gears from generating data from one’s own experiences to interviewing others, the next three chapters detail different methods of interview. Chapter 14 , “Unstructured and Semistructured Interviewing,” by Svend Brinkmann, provides an introduction to qualitative interviewing as a social practice with a cultural history. Issues addressed include different levels of structure, numbers of participants, media of interviewing, and also interviewer styles. A more detailed exposition of semistructured life world interviewing is offered, as Brinkmann suggests this is arguably the standard form of qualitative interviewing today. The next chapter is “Oral History Interviewing: Issues and Possibilities” by Valerie J. Janesick. As she explains, oral history resides in storytelling and involves the collection of stories, statements, and reminiscences of a person or persons who have firsthand knowledge of any number of experiences. Oral history offers qualitative researchers a way to capture the lived experiences of participants. The techniques of oral history may include interviews, document analysis, photographs, and video. Three major issues that emerge are those of social justice, arts-based approaches to oral history, and transdisciplinarity. Janesick notes that, in the current climate, there are endless possibilities in terms of using digital techniques for data presentation, data analysis, and dissemination. In Chapter 16 , “Focus Group Research: Retrospect and Prospect,” by George Kamberelis and Greg Dimitriadis, we turn to a method of group interviewing. First, the authors highlight the historical origins, tensions, and continuities/discontinuities of focus group research. Second, they suggest that focus group research embodies three primary, related functions: an inquiry function, a pedagogical function, and a political function. Third, they explore issues including mitigating the researcher’s authority; disclosing the constitutive power of discourse; approximating the natural; filling in knowledge gaps and saturating understanding; drawing out complexity, nuance, and contradiction; disclosing eclipsed connections; and creating opportunities for political activism. Fourth, they discuss contemporary threats to focus group work, and they conclude with what they see as new research frontiers for focus group research, especially in relation to new information technologies.

Part 3 concludes with Erica Tucker’s chapter “Museum Studies” which, as an entire area of study, arguably could have been placed in other sections of the handbook (such as the next section on multimethod research). However, given that museum studies often involve ethnographic observations in natural settings, I conclude Part 3 with this chapter. Tucker reviews the major research methods used to study museums, including gallery analyses and interviews with museum visitors, professionals, and stakeholders, as well as ethnographic fieldwork. Drawing from a range of case studies conducted by museum practitioners, anthropologists, historians, and other museum studies scholars, the author explores how these qualitative methods can be adapted to the study of exhibits, programs, and museums as knowledge-generating institutions. Approaches to research design, data analyses, and representation are also examined.

The next section of the handbook, “Text, Arts-Based, and Internet Methods,” considers how qualitative researchers work with nonliving data or through mediated forms. Although these methods are at times considered unobtrusive (because the data exist independent of the research; e.g., in the case of content analyzing newspapers), there are also many participatory approaches that are considered (such as participatory arts-based research).

Chapter 18 , “Content Analysis,” by Lindsay Prior, focuses on the ways in which content analysis can be used to investigate and describe interview and textual data. The author considers the method in both qualitative and quantitative social research. Examples of four different kinds of data are subjected to content analysis. Using a distinctive style of content analysis that calls on the notion of semantic networks, Prior shows how the method can be used either independently or in conjunction with other forms of inquiry (including various styles of discourse analysis) to analyze data and also how it can be used to verify and underpin claims that arise out of analysis. The chapter ends with an overview of the different ways in which the study of “content”—especially the study of document content—can be positioned in social scientific research projects.

Chapter 19 , “Photography as a Research Method,” by Gunilla Holm, reviews the development of photography as a research method in social sciences. Holm describes the different types of photographs used, such as archival photographs, photographs taken by the researcher, and photographs taken by participants. The uses of different approaches to obtain photographs and issues of interest concerning each approach are presented. The most common approaches to analyze photographs, such as content analysis, discourse analysis, and ethnographic analysis, are described. Questions surrounding interpretation and ethical practice are also considered.

Chapter 20 , “Arts-Based Research Practice: Merging Social Research and the Creative Arts,” by Gioia Chilton and Patricia Leavy, offers an overview of the emerging genre of arts-based research (ABR). ABR adapts the tenets of the creative arts in social research in order to approach research questions in new ways, ask new questions, and make research findings publicly accessible, evocative, and engaged. The authors provide a retrospective and prospective overview of the field, including a review of the some of the pioneers of ABR, methodological principles, robust examples of ABR within different artistic genres, assessment criteria, and the future of the field.

The final chapter in this section of the handbook is “Qualitative Approaches in Internet-Mediated Research: Opportunities, Issues, Possibilities” by Claire Hewson. Internet-mediated research (IMR) has grown expansively over the past decade, in both its scope and range of methodological possibilities and in its breadth of penetration across disciplines and research domains. However, the use of IMR approaches to support qualitative research has lagged behind its application in supporting quantitative methods. This chapter discusses the possibilities and scope for using IMR methods in qualitative research and considers some of the issues and debates that have led some qualitative researchers to be reluctant to consider this approach as a viable alternative to traditional offline methods. Hewson adopts an optimistic stance on the potential for qualitative IMR and outlines a range of possible methods and strategies, punctuated with examples of successful (as well as less successful) studies. The chapter also covers practical issues and offers a commentary on the possible future of IMR.

Part 5 of the handbook, “Multimethod, Mixed Method, and Participatory Designs,” focuses on approaches to research that typically rely on the use of more than one method of data collection and/or the participation of nonacademic stakeholders. Several of the chapters in this section could easily have been placed in Part 2 of the handbook because they can be viewed as “approaches” to research. Again, this illustrates how fluid the field of qualitative research is, with its overlaps in definitions and practice. Notwithstanding the suggestion that some of these chapters cover broad approaches to research, I have placed them in this section of the handbook because they generally involve the use of more than one method.

Chapter 22 , “Case Study Research: In-Depth Understanding in Context,” by Helen R. Simons, explores case study as a major approach to research and evaluation. After first noting various contexts in which case studies are commonly used, the chapter focuses on case study research directly. Strengths and potential problematic issues are outlined, as are key phases of the process. The chapter emphasizes how important it is to design the case, to collect and interpret data in ways that highlight the qualitative, to have an ethical practice that values multiple perspectives and political interests, and to report creatively to facilitate use in policy making and practice. Finally, the chapter explores how to generalize from the singular case. Concluding questions center on the need to think more imaginatively about design and the range of methods and forms of reporting available to persuade audiences to value qualitative ways of knowing in case study research.

In Chapter 23 , “Program Evaluation,” Paul R. Brandon and Anna L. Ah Sam offer a detailed overview of program evaluation situated in the historical context in which this practice has developed. The chapter includes discussion regarding the choice of methods, some of which are used primarily within evaluation approaches to conducting evaluation; the aspects of programs that evaluators typically address; the concept of value; the differences between evaluation and social science research; research on evaluation topics; and the major evaluation issues and concerns that have dominated discussion in the literature.

The following two chapters cover approaches to research that involve community participation. Chapter 24 “Community-Based Research: Understanding the Principles, Practices, Challenges, and Rationale,” by Margaret R. Boyd, reviews the inclusion of community members in research practice. This chapter is an introduction to the historical roots and subdivisions within community-based research (CBR) and discusses the core principles and skills useful when designing and working with community members in a collaborative, innovative, and transformative research partnership. The rationale for working within this research paradigm is discussed as are the challenges researchers and practitioners face when conducting CBR. Boyd suggests CBR challenges the traditional research paradigm by recognizing that complex social problems must involve multiple stakeholders in the research process—not as subjects but as co-investigators and co-authors. It is an “orientation to inquiry” rather than a methodology and reflects a transdisciplinary paradigm by including academics from many different disciplines, community members, activists, and often students in all stages of the research process. As the scholarship and practice of this form of research has increased dramatically over the past twenty years, this chapter looks at both new and emerging issues, as well as at founding questions that continue to draw debate in the contemporary discourse. In Chapter 25 , “Lineages: A Past, Present, and Future of Participatory Action Research,” Sarah Zeller-Berkman provides a historical overview of participatory action research (PAR). Like CBR, this is a social justice–oriented approach to research that transcends method but relies on a variety of qualitative methods. Zeller-Berkman writes that PAR in the twenty-first century asserts a democratization of who has the right to create knowledge, research social conditions, engage in participatory processes, and take action. People using PAR generally believe that knowledge has and will continue to be a source of power. Participatory research is an attempt to shift the balance of power back in favor of people who have historically been denied representational power.

The next chapter in the handbook covers the methodological work being done in the content area of disaster research. 4 In “Qualitative Disaster Research,” Brenda D. Phillips provides an overview of the history of qualitative disaster research since the 1920s. Challenges associated with conducting disaster research, particularly field-based studies, are presented. The chapter also discusses ethical challenges related to homeland security and the emotional impacts of disaster research on humans. Sections then lay out issues specific to the life cycle of disasters (preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery), data gathering techniques commonly used (interviews, documents, observations, visual data), and strategies for data analysis. A final section links efforts to strengthen the trustworthiness and credibility of qualitative research to disaster studies.

The final chapter in this section of the handbook covers mixed-methods research. In Chapter 27 , “Conducting Mixed-Methods Research: Using Dialectical Pluralism and Social Psychological Strategies,” R. Burke Johnson, Tony Onwuegbuzie, Susan Tucker, and Marjorie L. Icenogle first summarize the philosophy of dialectical pluralism (DP). Ontologically, DP views reality as plural and changing. Epistemologically, DP follows a dialectical, dialogical, hermeneutical approach to listening, interacting, and learning from “the other.” Theoretically, DP integrates concepts especially from Rawls (e.g., procedural justice, reasonable pluralism, overlapping consensus, realistic utopia), Dewey (e.g., deliberative democracy, community, inquiry, growth), and Habermas (e.g., communicative rationality, deliberative democracy, discourse ethics, knowledge, public sphere). From empirical research, the authors draw on concepts and findings from social psychological literatures such as conflict management, negotiation, small-group psychology, group counseling, group dynamics, political diplomacy, deliberative democracy, and workplace justice. Dialectal pluralism requires purposeful construction of teams that include multiple/different values and perspectives and stakeholders from the most disadvantaged affected groups. The group process operates from the position of equal power, the use of social psychological strategies, and the working toward win-win solutions.

Part 6 of the handbook, “Analysis, Interpretation, Representation, and Evaluation,” covers a range of topics, including the analysis and interpretation of qualitative data, writing up qualitative research, and issues pertaining to evaluation.

The first two chapters in this section review qualitative data analysis. Chapter 28 , “Coding and Analysis Strategies,” by Johnny Saldaña, provides an overview of selected qualitative data analytic strategies, with a particular focus on codes and coding. Preparatory strategies for a qualitative research study and data management are first outlined. Six coding methods are then profiled using comparable interview data: process coding, in vivo coding, descriptive coding, values coding, dramaturgical coding, and versus coding. Strategies for constructing themes and assertions from the data then follow. Analytic memo writing is woven throughout the preceding as a method for generating additional analytic insight. Next, display- and arts-based strategies are provided, followed by recommended qualitative data analytic software programs and a discussion on verifying the researcher’s analytic findings. Chapter 29 , “Computer-Assisted Analysis of Qualitative Research,” by Christina Silver and Ann F. Lewins, picks up on the discussion of qualitative data analytic software programs (although it should be noted that this chapter also considers how technology can be used in data collection). Silver and Lewins focus on the current state of technological support for qualitative research practice. The chapter focuses on technology and how it assists three main aspects of qualitative research: data collection, preparation, and/or transcription; bibliographic management and systematic literature reviews; and data management and analysis. The main body of the chapter discusses the functionality, role, and implications of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS (CAQDAS) tools. Three recent trends in computer assistance are emphasized: support for visual analysis, support for mixed-methods approaches, and online solutions.

Moving from data analysis to interpretation, Chapter 30 , “Interpretation Strategies: Appropriate Concepts,” by Allen Trent and Jeasik Cho, presents a wide range of concepts related to interpretation in qualitative research. The chapter examines the meaning and importance of interpretation in qualitative inquiry and explores the ways methodology, data, and the self/researcher as instrument interact and impact interpretive processes. Additionally, the chapter presents a series of strategies for qualitative researchers engaged in the process of interpretation. The chapter closes by presenting a framework for qualitative researchers designed to inform their interpretations. The framework includes attention to the key qualitative research concepts transparency, reflexivity, analysis, validity, evidence, and literature. Four questions frame the chapter: What is interpretation and why are interpretive strategies important in qualitative research? How do methodology, data, and the researcher/self impact interpretation in qualitative research? How do qualitative researchers engage in the process of interpretation? And, in what ways can a framework for interpretation strategies support qualitative researchers across multiple methodologies and paradigms?

Chapter 31 , “Writing Up Qualitative Research,” by Jane Gilgun, provides guidelines for writing journal articles based on qualitative approaches. The guidelines are a part of the tradition of the Chicago School of Sociology and the author’s experience as an author and reviewer. The guidelines include understanding experiences in context, immersion, interpretations grounded in accounts of informants’ lived experiences, and conceiving of research as action-oriented. Gilgun suggests excellent write-ups have “grab”; that is, accounts that jump off the page and convey a sense of lived experiences. Although most of the chapter addresses the writing of conventional research reports, there is some coverage of writing articles that report findings resulting from ethnographies, autoethnographies, performances, poetry, and photography and other media.

The final chapter in this section of the handbook, “Evaluating Qualitative Research,” by Jeasik Cho and Allen Trent, addresses a wide range of theories and practices related to the evaluation of qualitative research (EQR). The authors present six categories of EQR: (1) a positivist category; (2) Lincoln and Guba’s alternative category; (3) a “subtle-realist” category developed by Hammersley, Atkinson, and Seale; (4) a general EQR category; (5) a category of post-criteriology; and (6) a post-validity category. The authors offer several evaluation strategies for EQR by providing a variety of examples. They also discuss a path forward for EQR. They conclude with a holistic view of EQR needed to collectively construct/confront inner and outer challenges to qualitative paradigms in the twenty-first century.

The final section of the handbook, “Conclusion: Politics and The Public,” offers some final thoughts about the politics of qualitative research, the importance of public scholarship, and the future of qualitative research in a transdisciplinary context.

In Chapter 33 , “The Politics of Research,” Michael D. Giardina and Joshua I. Newman critically interrogate the politics of research currently dominating US higher education, a politics that is shaped as much by theoretical and methodological questions and debates as it is by prevailing social, cultural, political, and economic forces. The authors’ arguments are guided by four primary questions: How and to what do the cultural and political priorities of the free-marketized, corporate university impact, direct, or confound the conduct of research? How and to what extent does politics situate methodologies? How and to what extent is the research act impinged on by such particularities as institutional review boards, national funding councils, scholarly journals, and the promotion and tenure process? And, how and where do we as academics fit into this new research climate? Giardina and Newman also provide a series of practical recommendations for professors and students alike who seek to actively confront and challenge the academic–industrial complex.

The closing chapter, “A Brief Statement on the Public and the Future of Qualitative Research,” offers some final comments about the future of qualitative research. I suggest that there is a widespread move from a disciplinary to a transdisciplinary research structure in which problems of importance are at the center of research practices (see Leavy, 2011 ). Within this context, qualitative researchers are well positioned to advance because of their ability to develop responsive and flexible research designs and present their work in multiple formats. Furthermore, I note how the broader move toward public scholarship is propelling both the practice of qualitative research and the teaching of qualitative methods.

Thank you to Dr. Tony Adams for providing his thoughtful and most helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter.

There is qualitative work that can be pointed to in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, it was the use of ethnography and related methods in the 1920s by researchers at the University of Chicago who were primarily studying urbanization (popularly deemed “The Chicago School of Sociology”) that prompted the use of qualitative methods in sociology departments around the United States. In the 1960s, the qualitative tradition fully emerged.

Chapter 2 of this handbook, “Historical Overview of Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences,” by Brinkmann, Jacobsen, and Kristiansen, provides a rich discussion of the history of qualitative research in relation to quantitative research.

There has been little documentation of the methodological work done in this field and therefore this chapter represents a significant contribution to the literature on both qualitative research and disaster studies.

Abbott, A. D. ( 2004 ). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences . New York: Norton.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bhavnani, Kum-Kum . ( 1993 ). Tracing the Contours: Feminist Research and Feminist Objectivity. Women’s Studies International Forum , 16 (2), 95–104.

Bresler, L. ( 2005 ). What musicianship can teach educational research. Music Education Research , 7 (2), 169–183.

Denzin, N. K. ( 2010 ). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) ( 1998 ). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Geertz, C. ( 1973 ). The interpretations of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Guba, E. , & Lincoln, Y. ( 1998 ). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harding, S. ( 1987 ). Feminism & methodology . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hesse-Biber, S. , & Leavy, P. ( 2004 ). Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory & practice . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hesse-Biber, S. , & Leavy, P. ( 2011 ). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jovanovic, G. ( 2011 ). Toward a social l history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences , 24 (2), 1–27.

Kuhn, T. S. ( 1962 ). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leavy, P. ( 2011 ). Essentials of transdisciplinary research: Using problem-centered methodologies . Walnut Creek, CA.: Left Coast Press.

Levi-Strauss, C. ( 1966 ). The savage mind . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lorenz, S. ( 2010 ). Procedurality as methodological paradigm or methods as procedures. Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 11 (1), 14. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1396

Madison, D. S. ( 2005 ). Critical ethnography . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Richardson, L. ( 1997 ). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Saldaña, J. ( 2011 ). The fundamentals of qualitative research: Understanding qualitative research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 2001 ). The dictionary of qualitative inquiry , 2nd ed. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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
Neurol Res Pract

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Loraine busetto.

1 Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Wolfgang Wick

2 Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Christoph Gumbinger

Associated data.

Not applicable.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of qualitative research methods, including hands-on information on how they can be used, reported and assessed. This article is intended for beginning qualitative researchers in the health sciences as well as experienced quantitative researchers who wish to broaden their understanding of qualitative research.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as “the study of the nature of phenomena”, including “their quality, different manifestations, the context in which they appear or the perspectives from which they can be perceived” , but excluding “their range, frequency and place in an objectively determined chain of cause and effect” [ 1 ]. This formal definition can be complemented with a more pragmatic rule of thumb: qualitative research generally includes data in form of words rather than numbers [ 2 ].

Why conduct qualitative research?

Because some research questions cannot be answered using (only) quantitative methods. For example, one Australian study addressed the issue of why patients from Aboriginal communities often present late or not at all to specialist services offered by tertiary care hospitals. Using qualitative interviews with patients and staff, it found one of the most significant access barriers to be transportation problems, including some towns and communities simply not having a bus service to the hospital [ 3 ]. A quantitative study could have measured the number of patients over time or even looked at possible explanatory factors – but only those previously known or suspected to be of relevance. To discover reasons for observed patterns, especially the invisible or surprising ones, qualitative designs are needed.

While qualitative research is common in other fields, it is still relatively underrepresented in health services research. The latter field is more traditionally rooted in the evidence-based-medicine paradigm, as seen in " research that involves testing the effectiveness of various strategies to achieve changes in clinical practice, preferably applying randomised controlled trial study designs (...) " [ 4 ]. This focus on quantitative research and specifically randomised controlled trials (RCT) is visible in the idea of a hierarchy of research evidence which assumes that some research designs are objectively better than others, and that choosing a "lesser" design is only acceptable when the better ones are not practically or ethically feasible [ 5 , 6 ]. Others, however, argue that an objective hierarchy does not exist, and that, instead, the research design and methods should be chosen to fit the specific research question at hand – "questions before methods" [ 2 , 7 – 9 ]. This means that even when an RCT is possible, some research problems require a different design that is better suited to addressing them. Arguing in JAMA, Berwick uses the example of rapid response teams in hospitals, which he describes as " a complex, multicomponent intervention – essentially a process of social change" susceptible to a range of different context factors including leadership or organisation history. According to him, "[in] such complex terrain, the RCT is an impoverished way to learn. Critics who use it as a truth standard in this context are incorrect" [ 8 ] . Instead of limiting oneself to RCTs, Berwick recommends embracing a wider range of methods , including qualitative ones, which for "these specific applications, (...) are not compromises in learning how to improve; they are superior" [ 8 ].

Research problems that can be approached particularly well using qualitative methods include assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change), addressing questions beyond “what works”, towards “what works for whom when, how and why”, and focussing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation [ 7 , 9 – 12 ]. Using qualitative methods can also help shed light on the “softer” side of medical treatment. For example, while quantitative trials can measure the costs and benefits of neuro-oncological treatment in terms of survival rates or adverse effects, qualitative research can help provide a better understanding of patient or caregiver stress, visibility of illness or out-of-pocket expenses.

How to conduct qualitative research?

Given that qualitative research is characterised by flexibility, openness and responsivity to context, the steps of data collection and analysis are not as separate and consecutive as they tend to be in quantitative research [ 13 , 14 ]. As Fossey puts it : “sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation are related to each other in a cyclical (iterative) manner, rather than following one after another in a stepwise approach” [ 15 ]. The researcher can make educated decisions with regard to the choice of method, how they are implemented, and to which and how many units they are applied [ 13 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this can involve several back-and-forth steps between data collection and analysis where new insights and experiences can lead to adaption and expansion of the original plan. Some insights may also necessitate a revision of the research question and/or the research design as a whole. The process ends when saturation is achieved, i.e. when no relevant new information can be found (see also below: sampling and saturation). For reasons of transparency, it is essential for all decisions as well as the underlying reasoning to be well-documented.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Iterative research process

While it is not always explicitly addressed, qualitative methods reflect a different underlying research paradigm than quantitative research (e.g. constructivism or interpretivism as opposed to positivism). The choice of methods can be based on the respective underlying substantive theory or theoretical framework used by the researcher [ 2 ].

Data collection

The methods of qualitative data collection most commonly used in health research are document study, observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 17 ].

Document study

Document study (also called document analysis) refers to the review by the researcher of written materials [ 14 ]. These can include personal and non-personal documents such as archives, annual reports, guidelines, policy documents, diaries or letters.

Observations

Observations are particularly useful to gain insights into a certain setting and actual behaviour – as opposed to reported behaviour or opinions [ 13 ]. Qualitative observations can be either participant or non-participant in nature. In participant observations, the observer is part of the observed setting, for example a nurse working in an intensive care unit [ 18 ]. In non-participant observations, the observer is “on the outside looking in”, i.e. present in but not part of the situation, trying not to influence the setting by their presence. Observations can be planned (e.g. for 3 h during the day or night shift) or ad hoc (e.g. as soon as a stroke patient arrives at the emergency room). During the observation, the observer takes notes on everything or certain pre-determined parts of what is happening around them, for example focusing on physician-patient interactions or communication between different professional groups. Written notes can be taken during or after the observations, depending on feasibility (which is usually lower during participant observations) and acceptability (e.g. when the observer is perceived to be judging the observed). Afterwards, these field notes are transcribed into observation protocols. If more than one observer was involved, field notes are taken independently, but notes can be consolidated into one protocol after discussions. Advantages of conducting observations include minimising the distance between the researcher and the researched, the potential discovery of topics that the researcher did not realise were relevant and gaining deeper insights into the real-world dimensions of the research problem at hand [ 18 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Hijmans & Kuyper describe qualitative interviews as “an exchange with an informal character, a conversation with a goal” [ 19 ]. Interviews are used to gain insights into a person’s subjective experiences, opinions and motivations – as opposed to facts or behaviours [ 13 ]. Interviews can be distinguished by the degree to which they are structured (i.e. a questionnaire), open (e.g. free conversation or autobiographical interviews) or semi-structured [ 2 , 13 ]. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined [ 19 ]. The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data collection, e.g. document study or observations. The topic list is usually adapted and improved at the start of the data collection process as the interviewer learns more about the field [ 20 ]. Across interviews the focus on the different (blocks of) questions may differ and some questions may be skipped altogether (e.g. if the interviewee is not able or willing to answer the questions or for concerns about the total length of the interview) [ 20 ]. Qualitative interviews are usually not conducted in written format as it impedes on the interactive component of the method [ 20 ]. In comparison to written surveys, qualitative interviews have the advantage of being interactive and allowing for unexpected topics to emerge and to be taken up by the researcher. This can also help overcome a provider or researcher-centred bias often found in written surveys, which by nature, can only measure what is already known or expected to be of relevance to the researcher. Interviews can be audio- or video-taped; but sometimes it is only feasible or acceptable for the interviewer to take written notes [ 14 , 16 , 20 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are group interviews to explore participants’ expertise and experiences, including explorations of how and why people behave in certain ways [ 1 ]. Focus groups usually consist of 6–8 people and are led by an experienced moderator following a topic guide or “script” [ 21 ]. They can involve an observer who takes note of the non-verbal aspects of the situation, possibly using an observation guide [ 21 ]. Depending on researchers’ and participants’ preferences, the discussions can be audio- or video-taped and transcribed afterwards [ 21 ]. Focus groups are useful for bringing together homogeneous (to a lesser extent heterogeneous) groups of participants with relevant expertise and experience on a given topic on which they can share detailed information [ 21 ]. Focus groups are a relatively easy, fast and inexpensive method to gain access to information on interactions in a given group, i.e. “the sharing and comparing” among participants [ 21 ]. Disadvantages include less control over the process and a lesser extent to which each individual may participate. Moreover, focus group moderators need experience, as do those tasked with the analysis of the resulting data. Focus groups can be less appropriate for discussing sensitive topics that participants might be reluctant to disclose in a group setting [ 13 ]. Moreover, attention must be paid to the emergence of “groupthink” as well as possible power dynamics within the group, e.g. when patients are awed or intimidated by health professionals.

Choosing the “right” method

As explained above, the school of thought underlying qualitative research assumes no objective hierarchy of evidence and methods. This means that each choice of single or combined methods has to be based on the research question that needs to be answered and a critical assessment with regard to whether or to what extent the chosen method can accomplish this – i.e. the “fit” between question and method [ 14 ]. It is necessary for these decisions to be documented when they are being made, and to be critically discussed when reporting methods and results.

Let us assume that our research aim is to examine the (clinical) processes around acute endovascular treatment (EVT), from the patient’s arrival at the emergency room to recanalization, with the aim to identify possible causes for delay and/or other causes for sub-optimal treatment outcome. As a first step, we could conduct a document study of the relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for this phase of care – are they up-to-date and in line with current guidelines? Do they contain any mistakes, irregularities or uncertainties that could cause delays or other problems? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the results have to be interpreted based on what they are: a written outline of what care processes in this hospital should look like. If we want to know what they actually look like in practice, we can conduct observations of the processes described in the SOPs. These results can (and should) be analysed in themselves, but also in comparison to the results of the document analysis, especially as regards relevant discrepancies. Do the SOPs outline specific tests for which no equipment can be observed or tasks to be performed by specialized nurses who are not present during the observation? It might also be possible that the written SOP is outdated, but the actual care provided is in line with current best practice. In order to find out why these discrepancies exist, it can be useful to conduct interviews. Are the physicians simply not aware of the SOPs (because their existence is limited to the hospital’s intranet) or do they actively disagree with them or does the infrastructure make it impossible to provide the care as described? Another rationale for adding interviews is that some situations (or all of their possible variations for different patient groups or the day, night or weekend shift) cannot practically or ethically be observed. In this case, it is possible to ask those involved to report on their actions – being aware that this is not the same as the actual observation. A senior physician’s or hospital manager’s description of certain situations might differ from a nurse’s or junior physician’s one, maybe because they intentionally misrepresent facts or maybe because different aspects of the process are visible or important to them. In some cases, it can also be relevant to consider to whom the interviewee is disclosing this information – someone they trust, someone they are otherwise not connected to, or someone they suspect or are aware of being in a potentially “dangerous” power relationship to them. Lastly, a focus group could be conducted with representatives of the relevant professional groups to explore how and why exactly they provide care around EVT. The discussion might reveal discrepancies (between SOPs and actual care or between different physicians) and motivations to the researchers as well as to the focus group members that they might not have been aware of themselves. For the focus group to deliver relevant information, attention has to be paid to its composition and conduct, for example, to make sure that all participants feel safe to disclose sensitive or potentially problematic information or that the discussion is not dominated by (senior) physicians only. The resulting combination of data collection methods is shown in Fig. 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Possible combination of data collection methods

Attributions for icons: “Book” by Serhii Smirnov, “Interview” by Adrien Coquet, FR, “Magnifying Glass” by anggun, ID, “Business communication” by Vectors Market; all from the Noun Project

The combination of multiple data source as described for this example can be referred to as “triangulation”, in which multiple measurements are carried out from different angles to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study [ 22 , 23 ].

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through observations, interviews and focus groups these need to be transcribed into protocols and transcripts (see Fig. 3 ). Interviews and focus groups can be transcribed verbatim , with or without annotations for behaviour (e.g. laughing, crying, pausing) and with or without phonetic transcription of dialects and filler words, depending on what is expected or known to be relevant for the analysis. In the next step, the protocols and transcripts are coded , that is, marked (or tagged, labelled) with one or more short descriptors of the content of a sentence or paragraph [ 2 , 15 , 23 ]. Jansen describes coding as “connecting the raw data with “theoretical” terms” [ 20 ]. In a more practical sense, coding makes raw data sortable. This makes it possible to extract and examine all segments describing, say, a tele-neurology consultation from multiple data sources (e.g. SOPs, emergency room observations, staff and patient interview). In a process of synthesis and abstraction, the codes are then grouped, summarised and/or categorised [ 15 , 20 ]. The end product of the coding or analysis process is a descriptive theory of the behavioural pattern under investigation [ 20 ]. The coding process is performed using qualitative data management software, the most common ones being InVivo, MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. It should be noted that these are data management tools which support the analysis performed by the researcher(s) [ 14 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig3_HTML.jpg

From data collection to data analysis

Attributions for icons: see Fig. Fig.2, 2 , also “Speech to text” by Trevor Dsouza, “Field Notes” by Mike O’Brien, US, “Voice Record” by ProSymbols, US, “Inspection” by Made, AU, and “Cloud” by Graphic Tigers; all from the Noun Project

How to report qualitative research?

Protocols of qualitative research can be published separately and in advance of the study results. However, the aim is not the same as in RCT protocols, i.e. to pre-define and set in stone the research questions and primary or secondary endpoints. Rather, it is a way to describe the research methods in detail, which might not be possible in the results paper given journals’ word limits. Qualitative research papers are usually longer than their quantitative counterparts to allow for deep understanding and so-called “thick description”. In the methods section, the focus is on transparency of the methods used, including why, how and by whom they were implemented in the specific study setting, so as to enable a discussion of whether and how this may have influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results section usually starts with a paragraph outlining the main findings, followed by more detailed descriptions of, for example, the commonalities, discrepancies or exceptions per category [ 20 ]. Here it is important to support main findings by relevant quotations, which may add information, context, emphasis or real-life examples [ 20 , 23 ]. It is subject to debate in the field whether it is relevant to state the exact number or percentage of respondents supporting a certain statement (e.g. “Five interviewees expressed negative feelings towards XYZ”) [ 21 ].

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

Qualitative methods can be combined with other methods in multi- or mixed methods designs, which “[employ] two or more different methods [ …] within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to one single method” [ 24 ]. Reasons for combining methods can be diverse, including triangulation for corroboration of findings, complementarity for illustration and clarification of results, expansion to extend the breadth and range of the study, explanation of (unexpected) results generated with one method with the help of another, or offsetting the weakness of one method with the strength of another [ 1 , 17 , 24 – 26 ]. The resulting designs can be classified according to when, why and how the different quantitative and/or qualitative data strands are combined. The three most common types of mixed method designs are the convergent parallel design , the explanatory sequential design and the exploratory sequential design. The designs with examples are shown in Fig. 4 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig4_HTML.jpg

Three common mixed methods designs

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 interpretation of results. Using the above example of EVT provision, this could entail setting up a quantitative EVT registry to measure process times and patient outcomes in parallel to conducting the qualitative research outlined above, and then comparing results. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to assess whether interview respondents’ subjective impressions of patients receiving good care match modified Rankin Scores at follow-up, or whether observed delays in care provision are exceptions or the rule when compared to door-to-needle times as documented in the registry. In the explanatory sequential design, a quantitative study is carried out first, followed by a qualitative study to help explain the results from the quantitative study. This would be an appropriate design if the registry alone had revealed relevant delays in door-to-needle times and the qualitative study would be used to understand where and why these occurred, and how they could be improved. In the exploratory design, the qualitative study is carried out first and its results help informing and building the quantitative study in the next step [ 26 ]. If the qualitative study around EVT provision had shown a high level of dissatisfaction among the staff members involved, a quantitative questionnaire investigating staff satisfaction could be set up in the next step, informed by the qualitative study on which topics dissatisfaction had been expressed. Amongst other things, the questionnaire design would make it possible to widen the reach of the research to more respondents from different (types of) hospitals, regions, countries or settings, and to conduct sub-group analyses for different professional groups.

How to assess qualitative research?

A variety of assessment criteria and lists have been developed for qualitative research, ranging in their focus and comprehensiveness [ 14 , 17 , 27 ]. However, none of these has been elevated to the “gold standard” in the field. In the following, we therefore focus on a set of commonly used assessment criteria that, from a practical standpoint, a researcher can look for when assessing a qualitative research report or paper.

Assessors should check the authors’ use of and adherence to the relevant reporting checklists (e.g. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)) to make sure all items that are relevant for this type of research are addressed [ 23 , 28 ]. Discussions of quantitative measures in addition to or instead of these qualitative measures can be a sign of lower quality of the research (paper). Providing and adhering to a checklist for qualitative research contributes to an important quality criterion for qualitative research, namely transparency [ 15 , 17 , 23 ].

Reflexivity

While methodological transparency and complete reporting is relevant for all types of research, some additional criteria must be taken into account for qualitative research. This includes what is called reflexivity, i.e. sensitivity to the relationship between the researcher and the researched, including how contact was established and maintained, or the background and experience of the researcher(s) involved in data collection and analysis. Depending on the research question and population to be researched this can be limited to professional experience, but it may also include gender, age or ethnicity [ 17 , 27 ]. These details are relevant because in qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, the researcher as a person cannot be isolated from the research process [ 23 ]. It may influence the conversation when an interviewed patient speaks to an interviewer who is a physician, or when an interviewee is asked to discuss a gynaecological procedure with a male interviewer, and therefore the reader must be made aware of these details [ 19 ].

Sampling and saturation

The aim of qualitative sampling is for all variants of the objects of observation that are deemed relevant for the study to be present in the sample “ to see the issue and its meanings from as many angles as possible” [ 1 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 ] , and to ensure “information-richness [ 15 ]. An iterative sampling approach is advised, in which data collection (e.g. five interviews) is followed by data analysis, followed by more data collection to find variants that are lacking in the current sample. This process continues until no new (relevant) information can be found and further sampling becomes redundant – which is called saturation [ 1 , 15 ] . In other words: qualitative data collection finds its end point not a priori , but when the research team determines that saturation has been reached [ 29 , 30 ].

This is also the reason why most qualitative studies use deliberate instead of random sampling strategies. This is generally referred to as “ purposive sampling” , in which researchers pre-define which types of participants or cases they need to include so as to cover all variations that are expected to be of relevance, based on the literature, previous experience or theory (i.e. theoretical sampling) [ 14 , 20 ]. Other types of purposive sampling include (but are not limited to) maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling or extreme or deviant case sampling [ 2 ]. In the above EVT example, a purposive sample could include all relevant professional groups and/or all relevant stakeholders (patients, relatives) and/or all relevant times of observation (day, night and weekend shift).

Assessors of qualitative research should check whether the considerations underlying the sampling strategy were sound and whether or how researchers tried to adapt and improve their strategies in stepwise or cyclical approaches between data collection and analysis to achieve saturation [ 14 ].

Good qualitative research is iterative in nature, i.e. it goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, revising and improving the approach where necessary. One example of this are pilot interviews, where different aspects of the interview (especially the interview guide, but also, for example, the site of the interview or whether the interview can be audio-recorded) are tested with a small number of respondents, evaluated and revised [ 19 ]. In doing so, the interviewer learns which wording or types of questions work best, or which is the best length of an interview with patients who have trouble concentrating for an extended time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to observations or focus groups which can also be piloted.

Ideally, coding should be performed by at least two researchers, especially at the beginning of the coding process when a common approach must be defined, including the establishment of a useful coding list (or tree), and when a common meaning of individual codes must be established [ 23 ]. An initial sub-set or all transcripts can be coded independently by the coders and then compared and consolidated after regular discussions in the research team. This is to make sure that codes are applied consistently to the research data.

Member checking

Member checking, also called respondent validation , refers to the practice of checking back with study respondents to see if the research is in line with their views [ 14 , 27 ]. This can happen after data collection or analysis or when first results are available [ 23 ]. For example, interviewees can be provided with (summaries of) their transcripts and asked whether they believe this to be a complete representation of their views or whether they would like to clarify or elaborate on their responses [ 17 ]. Respondents’ feedback on these issues then becomes part of the data collection and analysis [ 27 ].

Stakeholder involvement

In those niches where qualitative approaches have been able to evolve and grow, a new trend has seen the inclusion of patients and their representatives not only as study participants (i.e. “members”, see above) but as consultants to and active participants in the broader research process [ 31 – 33 ]. The underlying assumption is that patients and other stakeholders hold unique perspectives and experiences that add value beyond their own single story, making the research more relevant and beneficial to researchers, study participants and (future) patients alike [ 34 , 35 ]. Using the example of patients on or nearing dialysis, a recent scoping review found that 80% of clinical research did not address the top 10 research priorities identified by patients and caregivers [ 32 , 36 ]. In this sense, the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, especially patients and relatives, is increasingly being seen as a quality indicator in and of itself.

How not to assess qualitative research

The above overview does not include certain items that are routine in assessments of quantitative research. What follows is a non-exhaustive, non-representative, experience-based list of the quantitative criteria often applied to the assessment of qualitative research, as well as an explanation of the limited usefulness of these endeavours.

Protocol adherence

Given the openness and flexibility of qualitative research, it should not be assessed by how well it adheres to pre-determined and fixed strategies – in other words: its rigidity. Instead, the assessor should look for signs of adaptation and refinement based on lessons learned from earlier steps in the research process.

Sample size

For the reasons explained above, qualitative research does not require specific sample sizes, nor does it require that the sample size be determined a priori [ 1 , 14 , 27 , 37 – 39 ]. Sample size can only be a useful quality indicator when related to the research purpose, the chosen methodology and the composition of the sample, i.e. who was included and why.

Randomisation

While some authors argue that randomisation can be used in qualitative research, this is not commonly the case, as neither its feasibility nor its necessity or usefulness has been convincingly established for qualitative research [ 13 , 27 ]. Relevant disadvantages include the negative impact of a too large sample size as well as the possibility (or probability) of selecting “ quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate individuals ” [ 17 ]. Qualitative studies do not use control groups, either.

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

The concept of “interrater reliability” is sometimes used in qualitative research to assess to which extent the coding approach overlaps between the two co-coders. However, it is not clear what this measure tells us about the quality of the analysis [ 23 ]. This means that these scores can be included in qualitative research reports, preferably with some additional information on what the score means for the analysis, but it is not a requirement. Relatedly, it is not relevant for the quality or “objectivity” of qualitative research to separate those who recruited the study participants and collected and analysed the data. Experiences even show that it might be better to have the same person or team perform all of these tasks [ 20 ]. First, when researchers introduce themselves during recruitment this can enhance trust when the interview takes place days or weeks later with the same researcher. Second, when the audio-recording is transcribed for analysis, the researcher conducting the interviews will usually remember the interviewee and the specific interview situation during data analysis. This might be helpful in providing additional context information for interpretation of data, e.g. on whether something might have been meant as a joke [ 18 ].

Not being quantitative research

Being qualitative research instead of quantitative research should not be used as an assessment criterion if it is used irrespectively of the research problem at hand. Similarly, qualitative research should not be required to be combined with quantitative research per se – unless mixed methods research is judged as inherently better than single-method research. In this case, the same criterion should be applied for quantitative studies without a qualitative component.

The main take-away points of this paper are summarised in Table Table1. 1 . We aimed to show that, if conducted well, qualitative research can answer specific research questions that cannot to be adequately answered using (only) quantitative designs. Seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as equal will help us become more aware and critical of the “fit” between the research problem and our chosen methods: I can conduct an RCT to determine the reasons for transportation delays of acute stroke patients – but should I? It also provides us with a greater range of tools to tackle a greater range of research problems more appropriately and successfully, filling in the blind spots on one half of the methodological spectrum to better address the whole complexity of neurological research and practice.

Take-away-points

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

LB drafted the manuscript; WW and CG revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final versions.

no external funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods

Direct Observation, Interviews, Participation, Immersion, Focus Groups

Research, Samples, and Statistics
Key Concepts
Major Sociologists
News & Issues
Recommended Reading
Archaeology

Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from these data that help understand social life through the study of targeted populations or places.

People often frame it in opposition to quantitative research , which uses numerical data to identify large-scale trends and employs statistical operations to determine causal and correlative relationships between variables.

Within sociology, qualitative research is typically focused on the micro-level of social interaction that composes everyday life, whereas quantitative research typically focuses on macro-level trends and phenomena.

Key Takeaways

Methods of qualitative research include:

observation and immersion
open-ended surveys
focus groups
content analysis of visual and textual materials
oral history

Qualitative research has a long history in sociology and has been used within it for as long as the field has existed.

This type of research has long appealed to social scientists because it allows the researchers to investigate the meanings people attribute to their behavior, actions, and interactions with others.

While quantitative research is useful for identifying relationships between variables, like, for example, the connection between poverty and racial hate, it is qualitative research that can illuminate why this connection exists by going directly to the source—the people themselves.

Qualitative research is designed to reveal the meaning that informs the action or outcomes that are typically measured by quantitative research. So qualitative researchers investigate meanings, interpretations, symbols, and the processes and relations of social life.

What this type of research produces is descriptive data that the researcher must then interpret using rigorous and systematic methods of transcribing, coding, and analysis of trends and themes.

Because its focus is everyday life and people's experiences, qualitative research lends itself well to creating new theories using the inductive method , which can then be tested with further research.

Qualitative researchers use their own eyes, ears, and intelligence to collect in-depth perceptions and descriptions of targeted populations, places, and events.

Their findings are collected through a variety of methods, and often a researcher will use at least two or several of the following while conducting a qualitative study:

Direct observation : With direct observation, a researcher studies people as they go about their daily lives without participating or interfering. This type of research is often unknown to those under study, and as such, must be conducted in public settings where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, a researcher might observe the ways in which strangers interact in public as they gather to watch a street performer.
Open-ended surveys : While many surveys are designed to generate quantitative data, many are also designed with open-ended questions that allow for the generation and analysis of qualitative data. For example, a survey might be used to investigate not just which political candidates voters chose, but why they chose them, in their own words.
Focus group : In a focus group, a researcher engages a small group of participants in a conversation designed to generate data relevant to the research question. Focus groups can contain anywhere from 5 to 15 participants. Social scientists often use them in studies that examine an event or trend that occurs within a specific community. They are common in market research, too.
In-depth interviews : Researchers conduct in-depth interviews by speaking with participants in a one-on-one setting. Sometimes a researcher approaches the interview with a predetermined list of questions or topics for discussion but allows the conversation to evolve based on how the participant responds. Other times, the researcher has identified certain topics of interest but does not have a formal guide for the conversation, but allows the participant to guide it.
Oral history : The oral history method is used to create a historical account of an event, group, or community, and typically involves a series of in-depth interviews conducted with one or multiple participants over an extended period.
Participant observation : This method is similar to observation, however with this one, the researcher also participates in the action or events to not only observe others but to gain the first-hand experience in the setting.
Ethnographic observation : Ethnographic observation is the most intensive and in-depth observational method. Originating in anthropology, with this method, a researcher fully immerses themselves into the research setting and lives among the participants as one of them for anywhere from months to years. By doing this, the researcher attempts to experience day-to-day existence from the viewpoints of those studied to develop in-depth and long-term accounts of the community, events, or trends under observation.
Content analysis : This method is used by sociologists to analyze social life by interpreting words and images from documents, film, art, music, and other cultural products and media. The researchers look at how the words and images are used, and the context in which they are used to draw inferences about the underlying culture. Content analysis of digital material, especially that generated by social media users, has become a popular technique within the social sciences.

While much of the data generated by qualitative research is coded and analyzed using just the researcher's eyes and brain, the use of computer software to do these processes is increasingly popular within the social sciences.

Such software analysis works well when the data is too large for humans to handle, though the lack of a human interpreter is a common criticism of the use of computer software.

Pros and Cons

Qualitative research has both benefits and drawbacks.

On the plus side, it creates an in-depth understanding of the attitudes, behaviors, interactions, events, and social processes that comprise everyday life. In doing so, it helps social scientists understand how everyday life is influenced by society-wide things like social structure , social order , and all kinds of social forces.

This set of methods also has the benefit of being flexible and easily adaptable to changes in the research environment and can be conducted with minimal cost in many cases.

Among the downsides of qualitative research is that its scope is fairly limited so its findings are not always widely able to be generalized.

Researchers also have to use caution with these methods to ensure that they do not influence the data in ways that significantly change it and that they do not bring undue personal bias to their interpretation of the findings.

Fortunately, qualitative researchers receive rigorous training designed to eliminate or reduce these types of research bias.

How to Conduct a Sociology Research Interview
Definition of Idiographic and Nomothetic
What Is Participant Observation Research?
Pilot Study in Research
Conducting Case Study Research in Sociology
How to Understand Interpretive Sociology
What Is Ethnography?
Understanding Secondary Data and How to Use It in Research
Social Surveys: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Telephone Polls
Research in Essays and Reports
What Is Naturalistic Observation? Definition and Examples
Definition and Overview of Grounded Theory
A Review of Software Tools for Quantitative Data Analysis
Content Analysis: Method to Analyze Social Life Through Words, Images
The Sociology of the Internet and Digital Sociology
Immersion Definition: Cultural, Language, and Virtual

University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Qualitative Data Analysis: Citations

Atlas.ti web
R for text analysis
Microsoft Excel & spreadsheets
Other options
Planning Qual Data Analysis
Free Tools for QDA
QDA with NVivo
QDA with Atlas.ti
QDA with MAXQDA
PKM for QDA
QDA with Quirkos
Working Collaboratively
Qualitative Methods Texts
Transcription
Data organization
Example Publications

Cited sources

The sources linked here are cited throughout this guide.

Links for electronic versions that are open access or available to those with a University of Illinois affiliation are linked.

Clark, L., Birkhead, A. S., Fernandez, C., & Egger, M. J. (2017). A transcription and translation protocol for sensitive cross-cultural team research . Qualitative Health Research , 27 (12), 1751–1764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317726761

Bazeley, P. (2021). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies (2nd ed.). Sage.

Davidson, J., Thompson, S., & Harris, A. (2017). Qualitative data analysis software practices in complex research teams: Troubling the assumptions about transparency and portability . Qualitative Inquiry , 23 (10), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417731082

Farley, J., Duppong Hurley, K., & Aitken, A. A. (2020). Monitoring implementation in program evaluation with direct audio coding. Evaluation and Program Planning , 83 , 101854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101854

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports . Written Communication , 25 (3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815

Woods, D. Presentation in: Christina Silver, Phd. (2020, December 4). CAQDAS webinar 005 Transcription as an analytic act. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X-s1r4l0QQ.

<< Previous: Coding
Next: Example Publications >>
Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 2:23 PM
URL: https://guides.library.illinois.edu/qualitative

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

definition of qualitative research with citation

Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
Ugo Corte 3

588k Accesses

284 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.

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.

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

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

IMAGES

Qualitative Research: Definition, Types, Methods and Examples (2022)
Understanding Qualitative Research: An In-Depth Study Guide
3:1 Introduction to Qualitative Research: Definition and context
Qualitative Research
[PDF] The Ethos of Citation in Qualitative Research Methodology
(PDF) Qualitative Research Methods DEFINITION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

VIDEO

How to provide citations in google docs
What is Citation?
Citation and Reference Definition,example, formats, explained in Urdu and Hindi|Research Methodology
Mathematical Dfinition of Porosity
Difference between Qualitative & Quantitative Research
Qualitative vs Quantitative Data

COMMENTS

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
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 ...
What Is Qualitative Research?
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 ...
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 ...
(PDF) What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
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 ...
The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research
The substantially updated and revised Fifth Edition of this landmark handbook presents the state-of-the-art theory and practice of qualitative inquiry. Representing top scholars from around the world, the editors and contributors continue the tradition of synthesizing existing literature, defining the present, and shaping the future of qualitative research.
The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research
The final section offers a commentary about politics and research and the move toward public scholarship. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research is intended for students of all levels, faculty, and researchers across the social sciences. Keywords: qualitative research, museum studies, disaster studies, data analysis, assessment, ethical ...
The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research
Abstract. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition, presents a comprehensive retrospective and prospective review of the field of qualitative research. Original, accessible chapters written by interdisciplinary leaders in the field make this a critical reference work. Filled with robust examples from real-world research ...
The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research
Leavy explains qualitative research as a form of bricolage and qualitative researchers as bricoleurs. The remainder of the chapter reviews the contents of the handbook, providing a chapter by chapter summary. Keywords: Qualitative research, paradigm, ontology, epistemology, genre, methods, theory, methodology, ethics, values, reflexivity. Subject.
How to use and assess qualitative research methods
Abstract. This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions ...
(PDF) What is Qualitative in Research
As a research design, the qualitative type is utilized to understand a phenomenon by exploring human experience and meaning. This is done by employing an interpreting approach to the data gathered ...
Planning Qualitative Research: Design and Decision Making for New
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 ...
What is Qualitative in Research
In that piece 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.". In light of the comments, we identify three positions in relation to our contribution: (1) to not ...
PDF Qualitative Research
definition offered by Nkwi, Nyamongo, and Ryan (2001, p. 1): "Qualitative research involves any research that uses data that do not indicate ordinal values." For these authors, the defining criterion is the type of data generated and/or used. In short, qualitative research involves collecting and/or working with text, images, or sounds.
Qualitative Research: An Overview
Qualitative research is a 'big tent' that encompasses various schools of thoughts. There is a general consensus that qualitative research is best used to answer why and howresearch questions, but not how much or to what extent questions. The word 'how can Footnote 5 ' is also frequently used in the research question of a qualitative research; this typically requires open-ended vs ...
(PDF) What Is Qualitative Research?
and qualitative research: (1) the distinction between explanation and understanding as the purpose of. inquiry; (2) the distinction between a personal and impersonal role for the. researcher; and ...
Qualitative Research Definition and Methods
Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from these data that help understand social life through the study of targeted populations or places. People often frame it in opposition to quantitative research, which uses numerical data to identify ...
Citations
Resources on conducting qualitative data analysis Lists works cited across this guide
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge. Quantitative research. Quantitative research is expressed in numbers and graphs. It is used to test or confirm theories and assumptions.
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
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 ...
Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education , 44(1), 26-29. Google Scholar
Qualitative Research Methods: A Practice-Oriented Introduction
The book aims at achieving e ects in three domains: (a) the. personal, (b) the scholarly, and (c) the practical. The personal goal. is to demystify qualitative methods, give readers a feel for ...
Full article: "Discharge Doesn't Mean the End" Exploring Success in
The definition of "young adult" is highly variable in the literature, at times identified as 18-24 or 18-29 2, Citation 10, Citation 17. A range of 18-28 years was chosen for this study to include YA with a 10-year range of ages who would have had recency in their adult health care or discharge experiences.
Workplace Violence and the Impostor Phenomenon in Medicine: A US-Based
Physicians experience impostor phenomenon when they attribute their success to luck and fraudulence rather than ability or competence. They also experience workplace violence, including sexual and nonsexual harassment, discrimination, microaggression, and assault, among others. Using Weiner's attribution theory, this qualitative study interviewed US-based physicians experiencing impostor ...
Expand the Definition of a Public Assistance Household
If you live in a public assistance household. (a) Definition. For purposes of our programs, a public assistance household is one that has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed public income maintenance payments. These are payments made under—.
Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods
Scientific research adopts qualitati ve and quantitative methodologies in the modeling. and analysis of numerous phenomena. The qualitative methodology intends to. understand a complex reality and ...

Qualitative Research : Definition

Events and Workshops

You are here

The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research

Sample Materials & Chapters

Related Products

1 Introduction

What Is Qualitative Research?

The Elements of Research

The Philosophical Substructure of Qualitative Research

Praxis: Approaches, Methods, and Theories in Action

Ethics: Beliefs and Practices

Who Are Qualitative Researchers?

The Contents of This Handbook

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Wolfgang Wick

Christoph Gumbinger

What is qualitative research?

Why conduct qualitative research?

How to conduct qualitative research?

Data collection

Document study

Observations

Semi-structured interviews

Focus groups

Choosing the “right” method

Data analysis

How to report qualitative research?

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

How to assess qualitative research?

Reflexivity

Sampling and saturation

Member checking

Stakeholder involvement

How not to assess qualitative research

Protocol adherence

Sample size

Randomisation

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

Not being quantitative research

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials

An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods

Key Takeaways

Pros and Cons

University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Qualitative Data Analysis: Citations

Cited sources

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Research

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative and Quantitative

Qualitative Research

Grounded Theory

Defining Qualitative Research

Distinctions

Improved Understanding

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

The Federal Register

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS