why qualitative research is good

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

76k Accesses

28 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations

Gordon W. Cheung, Helena D. Cooper-Thomas, … Linda C. Wang

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Sascha Kraus, Matthias Breier, … João J. Ferreira

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

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 licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

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
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• ESHRE Pages
• Mini-reviews
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Reasons to Publish
• Open Access
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Advertising
• Reprints and ePrints
• Sponsored Supplements
• Branded Books
• Journals Career Network
• About Human Reproduction
• About the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
• Editorial Board
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ESHRE
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, when to use qualitative research, how to judge qualitative research, conclusions, authors' roles, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

K. Hammarberg, M. Kirkman, S. de Lacey, Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them, Human Reproduction , Volume 31, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 498–501, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev334

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In March 2015, an impressive set of guidelines for best practice on how to incorporate psychosocial care in routine infertility care was published by the ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group ( ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group, 2015 ). The authors report that the guidelines are based on a comprehensive review of the literature and we congratulate them on their meticulous compilation of evidence into a clinically useful document. However, when we read the methodology section, we were baffled and disappointed to find that evidence from research using qualitative methods was not included in the formulation of the guidelines. Despite stating that ‘qualitative research has significant value to assess the lived experience of infertility and fertility treatment’, the group excluded this body of evidence because qualitative research is ‘not generally hypothesis-driven and not objective/neutral, as the researcher puts him/herself in the position of the participant to understand how the world is from the person's perspective’.

Qualitative and quantitative research methods are often juxtaposed as representing two different world views. In quantitative circles, qualitative research is commonly viewed with suspicion and considered lightweight because it involves small samples which may not be representative of the broader population, it is seen as not objective, and the results are assessed as biased by the researchers' own experiences or opinions. In qualitative circles, quantitative research can be dismissed as over-simplifying individual experience in the cause of generalisation, failing to acknowledge researcher biases and expectations in research design, and requiring guesswork to understand the human meaning of aggregate data.

As social scientists who investigate psychosocial aspects of human reproduction, we use qualitative and quantitative methods, separately or together, depending on the research question. The crucial part is to know when to use what method.

The peer-review process is a pillar of scientific publishing. One of the important roles of reviewers is to assess the scientific rigour of the studies from which authors draw their conclusions. If rigour is lacking, the paper should not be published. As with research using quantitative methods, research using qualitative methods is home to the good, the bad and the ugly. It is essential that reviewers know the difference. Rejection letters are hard to take but more often than not they are based on legitimate critique. However, from time to time it is obvious that the reviewer has little grasp of what constitutes rigour or quality in qualitative research. The first author (K.H.) recently submitted a paper that reported findings from a qualitative study about fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age. In the rejection letter one of the reviewers (not from Human Reproduction ) lamented, ‘Even for a qualitative study, I would expect that some form of confidence interval and paired t-tables analysis, etc. be used to analyse the significance of results'. This comment reveals the reviewer's inappropriate application to qualitative research of criteria relevant only to quantitative research.

In this commentary, we give illustrative examples of questions most appropriately answered using qualitative methods and provide general advice about how to appraise the scientific rigour of qualitative studies. We hope this will help the journal's reviewers and readers appreciate the legitimate place of qualitative research and ensure we do not throw the baby out with the bath water by excluding or rejecting papers simply because they report the results of qualitative studies.

In psychosocial research, ‘quantitative’ research methods are appropriate when ‘factual’ data are required to answer the research question; when general or probability information is sought on opinions, attitudes, views, beliefs or preferences; when variables can be isolated and defined; when variables can be linked to form hypotheses before data collection; and when the question or problem is known, clear and unambiguous. Quantitative methods can reveal, for example, what percentage of the population supports assisted conception, their distribution by age, marital status, residential area and so on, as well as changes from one survey to the next ( Kovacs et al. , 2012 ); the number of donors and donor siblings located by parents of donor-conceived children ( Freeman et al. , 2009 ); and the relationship between the attitude of donor-conceived people to learning of their donor insemination conception and their family ‘type’ (one or two parents, lesbian or heterosexual parents; Beeson et al. , 2011 ).

In contrast, ‘qualitative’ methods are used to answer questions about experience, meaning and perspective, most often from the standpoint of the participant. These data are usually not amenable to counting or measuring. Qualitative research techniques include ‘small-group discussions’ for investigating beliefs, attitudes and concepts of normative behaviour; ‘semi-structured interviews’, to seek views on a focused topic or, with key informants, for background information or an institutional perspective; ‘in-depth interviews’ to understand a condition, experience, or event from a personal perspective; and ‘analysis of texts and documents’, such as government reports, media articles, websites or diaries, to learn about distributed or private knowledge.

Qualitative methods have been used to reveal, for example, potential problems in implementing a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer, where small-group discussions enabled staff to explain their own resistance, leading to an amended approach ( Porter and Bhattacharya, 2005 ). Small-group discussions among assisted reproductive technology (ART) counsellors were used to investigate how the welfare principle is interpreted and practised by health professionals who must apply it in ART ( de Lacey et al. , 2015 ). When legislative change meant that gamete donors could seek identifying details of people conceived from their gametes, parents needed advice on how best to tell their children. Small-group discussions were convened to ask adolescents (not known to be donor-conceived) to reflect on how they would prefer to be told ( Kirkman et al. , 2007 ).

When a population cannot be identified, such as anonymous sperm donors from the 1980s, a qualitative approach with wide publicity can reach people who do not usually volunteer for research and reveal (for example) their attitudes to proposed legislation to remove anonymity with retrospective effect ( Hammarberg et al. , 2014 ). When researchers invite people to talk about their reflections on experience, they can sometimes learn more than they set out to discover. In describing their responses to proposed legislative change, participants also talked about people conceived as a result of their donations, demonstrating various constructions and expectations of relationships ( Kirkman et al. , 2014 ).

Interviews with parents in lesbian-parented families generated insight into the diverse meanings of the sperm donor in the creation and life of the family ( Wyverkens et al. , 2014 ). Oral and written interviews also revealed the embarrassment and ambivalence surrounding sperm donors evident in participants in donor-assisted conception ( Kirkman, 2004 ). The way in which parents conceptualise unused embryos and why they discard rather than donate was explored and understood via in-depth interviews, showing how and why the meaning of those embryos changed with parenthood ( de Lacey, 2005 ). In-depth interviews were also used to establish the intricate understanding by embryo donors and recipients of the meaning of embryo donation and the families built as a result ( Goedeke et al. , 2015 ).

It is possible to combine quantitative and qualitative methods, although great care should be taken to ensure that the theory behind each method is compatible and that the methods are being used for appropriate reasons. The two methods can be used sequentially (first a quantitative then a qualitative study or vice versa), where the first approach is used to facilitate the design of the second; they can be used in parallel as different approaches to the same question; or a dominant method may be enriched with a small component of an alternative method (such as qualitative interviews ‘nested’ in a large survey). It is important to note that free text in surveys represents qualitative data but does not constitute qualitative research. Qualitative and quantitative methods may be used together for corroboration (hoping for similar outcomes from both methods), elaboration (using qualitative data to explain or interpret quantitative data, or to demonstrate how the quantitative findings apply in particular cases), complementarity (where the qualitative and quantitative results differ but generate complementary insights) or contradiction (where qualitative and quantitative data lead to different conclusions). Each has its advantages and challenges ( Brannen, 2005 ).

Qualitative research is gaining increased momentum in the clinical setting and carries different criteria for evaluating its rigour or quality. Quantitative studies generally involve the systematic collection of data about a phenomenon, using standardized measures and statistical analysis. In contrast, qualitative studies involve the systematic collection, organization, description and interpretation of textual, verbal or visual data. The particular approach taken determines to a certain extent the criteria used for judging the quality of the report. However, research using qualitative methods can be evaluated ( Dixon-Woods et al. , 2006 ; Young et al. , 2014 ) and there are some generic guidelines for assessing qualitative research ( Kitto et al. , 2008 ).

Although the terms ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ are contentious among qualitative researchers ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ) with some preferring ‘verification’, research integrity and robustness are as important in qualitative studies as they are in other forms of research. It is widely accepted that qualitative research should be ethical, important, intelligibly described, and use appropriate and rigorous methods ( Cohen and Crabtree, 2008 ). In research investigating data that can be counted or measured, replicability is essential. When other kinds of data are gathered in order to answer questions of personal or social meaning, we need to be able to capture real-life experiences, which cannot be identical from one person to the next. Furthermore, meaning is culturally determined and subject to evolutionary change. The way of explaining a phenomenon—such as what it means to use donated gametes—will vary, for example, according to the cultural significance of ‘blood’ or genes, interpretations of marital infidelity and religious constructs of sexual relationships and families. Culture may apply to a country, a community, or other actual or virtual group, and a person may be engaged at various levels of culture. In identifying meaning for members of a particular group, consistency may indeed be found from one research project to another. However, individuals within a cultural group may present different experiences and perceptions or transgress cultural expectations. That does not make them ‘wrong’ or invalidate the research. Rather, it offers insight into diversity and adds a piece to the puzzle to which other researchers also contribute.

In qualitative research the objective stance is obsolete, the researcher is the instrument, and ‘subjects’ become ‘participants’ who may contribute to data interpretation and analysis ( Denzin and Lincoln, 1998 ). Qualitative researchers defend the integrity of their work by different means: trustworthiness, credibility, applicability and consistency are the evaluative criteria ( Leininger, 1994 ).

Trustworthiness

A report of a qualitative study should contain the same robust procedural description as any other study. The purpose of the research, how it was conducted, procedural decisions, and details of data generation and management should be transparent and explicit. A reviewer should be able to follow the progression of events and decisions and understand their logic because there is adequate description, explanation and justification of the methodology and methods ( Kitto et al. , 2008 )

Credibility

Credibility is the criterion for evaluating the truth value or internal validity of qualitative research. A qualitative study is credible when its results, presented with adequate descriptions of context, are recognizable to people who share the experience and those who care for or treat them. As the instrument in qualitative research, the researcher defends its credibility through practices such as reflexivity (reflection on the influence of the researcher on the research), triangulation (where appropriate, answering the research question in several ways, such as through interviews, observation and documentary analysis) and substantial description of the interpretation process; verbatim quotations from the data are supplied to illustrate and support their interpretations ( Sandelowski, 1986 ). Where excerpts of data and interpretations are incongruent, the credibility of the study is in doubt.

Applicability

Applicability, or transferability of the research findings, is the criterion for evaluating external validity. A study is considered to meet the criterion of applicability when its findings can fit into contexts outside the study situation and when clinicians and researchers view the findings as meaningful and applicable in their own experiences.

Larger sample sizes do not produce greater applicability. Depth may be sacrificed to breadth or there may be too much data for adequate analysis. Sample sizes in qualitative research are typically small. The term ‘saturation’ is often used in reference to decisions about sample size in research using qualitative methods. Emerging from grounded theory, where filling theoretical categories is considered essential to the robustness of the developing theory, data saturation has been expanded to describe a situation where data tend towards repetition or where data cease to offer new directions and raise new questions ( Charmaz, 2005 ). However, the legitimacy of saturation as a generic marker of sampling adequacy has been questioned ( O'Reilly and Parker, 2013 ). Caution must be exercised to ensure that a commitment to saturation does not assume an ‘essence’ of an experience in which limited diversity is anticipated; each account is likely to be subtly different and each ‘sample’ will contribute to knowledge without telling the whole story. Increasingly, it is expected that researchers will report the kind of saturation they have applied and their criteria for recognising its achievement; an assessor will need to judge whether the choice is appropriate and consistent with the theoretical context within which the research has been conducted.

Sampling strategies are usually purposive, convenient, theoretical or snowballed. Maximum variation sampling may be used to seek representation of diverse perspectives on the topic. Homogeneous sampling may be used to recruit a group of participants with specified criteria. The threat of bias is irrelevant; participants are recruited and selected specifically because they can illuminate the phenomenon being studied. Rather than being predetermined by statistical power analysis, qualitative study samples are dependent on the nature of the data, the availability of participants and where those data take the investigator. Multiple data collections may also take place to obtain maximum insight into sensitive topics. For instance, the question of how decisions are made for embryo disposition may involve sampling within the patient group as well as from scientists, clinicians, counsellors and clinic administrators.

Consistency

Consistency, or dependability of the results, is the criterion for assessing reliability. This does not mean that the same result would necessarily be found in other contexts but that, given the same data, other researchers would find similar patterns. Researchers often seek maximum variation in the experience of a phenomenon, not only to illuminate it but also to discourage fulfilment of limited researcher expectations (for example, negative cases or instances that do not fit the emerging interpretation or theory should be actively sought and explored). Qualitative researchers sometimes describe the processes by which verification of the theoretical findings by another team member takes place ( Morse and Richards, 2002 ).

Research that uses qualitative methods is not, as it seems sometimes to be represented, the easy option, nor is it a collation of anecdotes. It usually involves a complex theoretical or philosophical framework. Rigorous analysis is conducted without the aid of straightforward mathematical rules. Researchers must demonstrate the validity of their analysis and conclusions, resulting in longer papers and occasional frustration with the word limits of appropriate journals. Nevertheless, we need the different kinds of evidence that is generated by qualitative methods. The experience of health, illness and medical intervention cannot always be counted and measured; researchers need to understand what they mean to individuals and groups. Knowledge gained from qualitative research methods can inform clinical practice, indicate how to support people living with chronic conditions and contribute to community education and awareness about people who are (for example) experiencing infertility or using assisted conception.

Each author drafted a section of the manuscript and the manuscript as a whole was reviewed and revised by all authors in consultation.

No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Beeson D , Jennings P , Kramer W . Offspring searching for their sperm donors: how family types shape the process . Hum Reprod 2011 ; 26 : 2415 – 2424 .

Google Scholar

Brannen J . Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process . Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005 ; 8 : 173 – 184 .

Charmaz K . Grounded Theory in the 21st century; applications for advancing social justice studies . In: Denzin NK , Lincoln YS (eds). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research . California : Sage Publications Inc. , 2005 .

Google Preview

Cohen D , Crabtree B . Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations . Ann Fam Med 2008 ; 6 : 331 – 339 .

de Lacey S . Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos . Hum Reprod 2005 ; 20 : 1661 – 1669 .

de Lacey SL , Peterson K , McMillan J . Child interests in assisted reproductive technology: how is the welfare principle applied in practice? Hum Reprod 2015 ; 30 : 616 – 624 .

Denzin N , Lincoln Y . Entering the field of qualitative research . In: Denzin NK , Lincoln YS (eds). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues . Thousand Oaks : Sage , 1998 , 1 – 34 .

Dixon-Woods M , Bonas S , Booth A , Jones DR , Miller T , Shaw RL , Smith JA , Young B . How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective . Qual Res 2006 ; 6 : 27 – 44 .

ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group . Routine Psychosocial Care in Infertility and Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Guide for Fertility Staff , 2015 . http://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Psychosocial-care-guideline.aspx .

Freeman T , Jadva V , Kramer W , Golombok S . Gamete donation: parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings or donor . Hum Reprod 2009 ; 24 : 505 – 516 .

Goedeke S , Daniels K , Thorpe M , Du Preez E . Building extended families through embryo donation: the experiences of donors and recipients . Hum Reprod 2015 ; 30 : 2340 – 2350 .

Hammarberg K , Johnson L , Bourne K , Fisher J , Kirkman M . Proposed legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information: consultation with donors and Government response . Hum Reprod 2014 ; 29 : 286 – 292 .

Kirkman M . Saviours and satyrs: ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision . Cult Health Sex 2004 ; 6 : 319 – 336 .

Kirkman M , Rosenthal D , Johnson L . Families working it out: adolescents' views on communicating about donor-assisted conception . Hum Reprod 2007 ; 22 : 2318 – 2324 .

Kirkman M , Bourne K , Fisher J , Johnson L , Hammarberg K . Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring . Hum Reprod 2014 ; 29 : 731 – 738 .

Kitto S , Chesters J , Grbich C . Quality in qualitative research . Med J Aust 2008 ; 188 : 243 – 246 .

Kovacs GT , Morgan G , Levine M , McCrann J . The Australian community overwhelmingly approves IVF to treat subfertility, with increasing support over three decades . Aust N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol 2012 ; 52 : 302 – 304 .

Leininger M . Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies . In: Morse J (ed). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods . Thousand Oaks : Sage , 1994 , 95 – 115 .

Lincoln YS , Guba EG . Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications , 1985 .

Morse J , Richards L . Readme First for a Users Guide to Qualitative Methods . Thousand Oaks : Sage , 2002 .

O'Reilly M , Parker N . ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research . Qual Res 2013 ; 13 : 190 – 197 .

Porter M , Bhattacharya S . Investigation of staff and patients' opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer . Hum Reprod 2005 ; 20 : 2523 – 2530 .

Sandelowski M . The problem of rigor in qualitative research . Adv Nurs Sci 1986 ; 8 : 27 – 37 .

Wyverkens E , Provoost V , Ravelingien A , De Sutter P , Pennings G , Buysse A . Beyond sperm cells: a qualitative study on constructed meanings of the sperm donor in lesbian families . Hum Reprod 2014 ; 29 : 1248 – 1254 .

Young K , Fisher J , Kirkman M . Women's experiences of endometriosis: a systematic review of qualitative research . J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2014 ; 41 : 225 – 234 .

• conflict of interest
• credibility
• qualitative research
• quantitative methods

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2350
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
• 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
• 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

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

CALL ONEPOLL ON (646) 873-7565

• MEMBERS LOGIN
• MEMBER SIGN UP

• Custom research
• Media polls
• animals & pet care
• b2b research
• consumer goods
• consumer research
• financial services
• food & drink
• health & wellness
• international
• internet & software
• state-by-state
• work & career
• Blog & news

Qualitative research: What is it and why should you use it?

What is qualitative research.

For those more familiar with quantitative research techniques, the methods used in qualitative research may, at first look, seem ineffective. However, it is important to realise that qualitative research is not trying to answer the same questions that are asked in quantitative research.

In short, in comparison to quantitative, qualitative research focuses on words rather than numbers, depth rather than breadth. Its methods are exploratory; they seek to unearth the opinions, thoughts and feelings of respondents. It is most commonly used to help inform new concepts, theories and products. First developed within the social sciences, qualitative research is now widely used to inform market research, by gaining unique consumer insight from a wealth of data.

One particular difference between qualitative and quantitative research is that the former requires much more in-depth involvement from the researcher. It is their interpretation which shapes the outcome.

Why choose online qualitative research?

Now you know the basics of qualitative research, why should you use it to conduct your project? Here are some of the main benefits:

• Qualitative techniques give you a unique depth of understanding which is difficult to gain from a closed question survey. Respondents are able to freely disclose their experiences, thoughts and feelings without constraint. Qualitative methods offer a dynamic approach to research, where the researcher has an opportunity to follow up on answers given by respondents in real time, generating valuable conversation around a subject – something which isn’t possible with a structured survey.
• Whilst the facts and figures generated by quantitative research are undoubtedly useful, you can often be left looking for the ‘why’ behind the stats. This is where qualitative research is key, as respondents have the opportunity to freely elaborate on their answers.

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted“ (Albert Einstein)

Online qualitative research methods are a relatively new approach within the field but come with their own unique benefits. Online methods make qualitative research more accessible by taking away the constraints of traditional techniques. For example, collecting data via a traditional focus group can be time-consuming and costly, whereas conducting an online focus group removes the cost of participant travel, venues and transcriptions, as well as logistically being easier to manage.

• Furthermore, by not being face-to-face with the moderator, respondents are likely to feel anonymous and therefore are more likely to give the most honest answers. This also helps alleviate moderator bias; body language, expressions, tone of language are all possible sources of bias in a face-to-face environment, something which is eradicated by online methods.
• There are many ways in which online qualitative techniques can specifically be useful for conducting market and consumer research. For example, if a brand needs to clarify or test new marketing messages, focus groups can be the perfect way to gain honest feedback. Qualitative methods can also be used to help construct new ideas for how to improve or fine tune a product, as well as learning how a brand matches its target audience. Overall, for any in-depth insight into how a brand/product is viewed by the general consumer, qualitative research has the perfect tools.

Whilst these methods aren’t going to give you statistics from large sample sizes which you can extrapolate across a population, it will give you the perfect tools to explore a new concept, or gain feedback on a new idea. It is also a great starting point to develop ideas which will later inform your quantitative research.

Online qualitative methods

There are a wealth of online qualitative methods you can use to gain product and customer insight. Here are a few common techniques:

Focus Groups: This is a useful way to generate guided discussion around the topics of your choice. The moderator of the group would begin the discussion using text or video, allowing respondents to construct a conversation, generating data in real time. The moderator’s role would be to ensure conversation is on track and relevant, whilst also probing for deeper insight where appropriate.

Discussion boards: Similar to focus groups, discussion boards are useful when wanting to collect dynamic data over a longer period of time. Much like an online forum, the researcher can prompt a topic for discussion, allowing respondents to contribute and build on each other’s thoughts and ideas. This is an interactive way to produce qualitative data, and allows the researcher to have as much or little input as needed, through the use of prompts and probing. A discussion board could be active for several days to weeks.

These methods would be a great choice for generating feedback on a new product or marketing message; creating conversation between a diverse group of people, will help you understand different views of the product from various perspectives, and ensure you really get to know your customer.

Diaries and Journals: The use of diary or journal entries are a great way of generating qualitative data over a longer period of time. Respondents have the opportunity to upload entries at requested time intervals e.g. every day or once a week, recording their experiences and commenting on any changes of opinion.

This method would be of particular use within consumer research when wanting to understand the experience of a product over a period of time. For example, if you were looking to track the usage and experience of an app or website over a number of weeks, this would help gain insight into how it would be used by a consumer in the real world.

Pictures and Video: Other interactive qualitative techniques include the use of pictures and videos. Respondents are able to upload photos or short video clips to help illustrate their experiences. For example, if providing a feedback on a product, respondents could provide video footage to complement their written word.

So now you have generated your qualitative data, what happens next? With such rich, detailed data, in-depth analysis is necessary to generate the key themes and insight from the research.  Once these key themes are formulated, the results can help inform the next stages in the development of a product or marketing message or help to narrow down your target audience.

In addition, your research may have prompted some new thoughts and concepts which you wish to explore, generating the basis for a quantitative survey to understand if these opinions are typical of a larger population.

In summary, qualitative research methods sit perfectly alongside quantitative methods to offer a unique opportunity to gain in-depth insight from consumers. What quantitative research lacks in depth of meaning, qualitative makes up for. Having access to both methods of research allows the ability for all research needs to be fulfilled.

OnePoll delivers fast, flexible, robust research.  Contact our team  to discuss your research requirements.

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences, privacy overview.

blog @ precision

5 great reasons to choose a qualitative research method.

A key decision you will need to make when developing your dissertation research plan is what research method you will use: quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Many of our dissertation assistance clients gravitate toward qualitative research for a whole host of reasons—and to be honest, a strong aversion to statistical analysis is often one of them! Qualitative analysis involves datasets that are usually text-based, such as interviews, documents, or notes regarding observations. So, it’s no wonder that those of us who are math-avoidant may prefer a qualitative research approach. 

And, this is OK! Developing your dissertation so that it makes the best use of your strengths is a great idea. Is also important, however, that you be able to provide a rationale for use of a qualitative research method that rests on statements other than, “I hate statistics!” To develop a great rationale for your use of qualitative research and analysis for your dissertation, it will help to understand some of the biggest strengths of this method. The aim of this article is to go over common reasons researchers use qualitative research methods along with some sample studies to help clarify why a qualitative method might be the right choice for your own dissertation.

Reason #1: Your Research Topic Has Not Been Extensively Studied

One great reason for choosing a qualitative research method is if your dissertation topic is as yet understudied. Qualitative research is great for such topics because it allows the researcher quite a bit of flexibility to explore questions with the participants. To understand the nature of this flexibility, it may help to compare common data collection procedures for quantitative versus qualitative studies. 

Quantitative methods often use instruments like surveys to collect data from participants. You’ve probably completed such surveys yourself, answering questions that are phrased like, “To what degree do you agree with the following statements…?” Numbered scales are then provided that allow you to rate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. These types of surveys are often used in quantitative dissertations, and of course, there are only so many responses a participant can give, and they’re all numerical. Furthermore, to ensure valid statistical analysis results, you need to use the validated instrument as-is or with only very slight modifications; therefore, this approach is inherently inflexible, and for good reason.

In contrast, the most common form of data collection for qualitative research is the individual interview. Unlike survey instruments, qualitative interview protocols  can be developed to suit your dissertation’s specific topic, which is one way that qualitative methods help to create flexibility. Also creating flexibility is the structure of the interview protocol itself. Semi-structured interviews—the most common type of interview used in dissertation research—allow for “probe questions” in between the planned interview questions that you ask every participant. Probe questions give you the flexibility to ask participants to talk further about certain thoughts or experiences they bring up during the interview (Qu & Dumay, 2011). This results in richly detailed responses to your questions that contribute valuable insights to the literature on your topic.

The flexibility of qualitative research methods is also great for exploring topics  that haven’t been studied widely (Ritchie & Ormston, 2013), as there might not yet be sufficient research on the topic to generate quantitative hypotheses to test with statistical analysis. It might also be that, due to the small amount of research on the topic, there actually aren’t any validated survey instruments on the topic. This can be a real drawback if you’re trying to use a quantitative method to examine the topic in your dissertation because developing an instrument and validating it is a lengthy, in-depth process that is typically not well-suited to a dissertation project. To be thorough, however, we should note that if you are ambitious, highly capable with statistical analysis, and have a lot of time, it might be possible to work toward quantitative survey development with your dissertation, if you have your heart set on this. It has been known to happen! In this case, you would likely start with qualitative research approaches to help with clarifying possible dimensions for your survey instrument. 

Example: Thematic Analysis of Near-Death Experiences

A study conducted by Cassol et al. (2018) provides a great example of qualitative research that was used to expand and refine understanding of a topic that had not been extensively researched. These researchers completed qualitative research regarding near-death experiences as described in detail by 34 individuals who had survived cardiac arrest episodes. Although previous qualitative and quantitative research had been conducted on this topic, the body of research on near-death experiences had not been elaborated sufficiently to support any type of theory development related to the experience. 

In an effort to support theory development, Cassol et al. (2018) asked their participants to write narratives about their experiences, going into as much detail as they wished. The researchers then used a thematic qualitative analysis  approach to identify a collection of dimensions that provided the foundation for theory development. This example also illustrates how qualitative research complements quantitative, as the theoretical dimensions that emerged through this study could be subsequently tested via quantitative studies.

Reason #2: Your Topic is Hard to Quantify

Another great reason for conducting qualitative research and analysis for your dissertation is if your dissertation topic  is just plain hard to quantify. This means that you can’t really capture what you want to understand about your topic if you try to put the data into numerical form. Remember that statistical analysis is the heart of quantitative methods, and if you can’t derive numerical data about your topic and research questions, then you obviously cannot conduct statistical analysis.

So, what kinds of research topics are difficult to quantify? For one, topics that relate to complex processes can be tough to put into numerical form. Or rather, putting them into numerical form can cause you to miss much of what you want to know. Think about the complex processes you encounter in settings like the workplace, such as how the interplay between features like policy, workplace social norms, communication modalities, and leadership behaviors can affect productivity and satisfaction. Although you can certainly conduct statistical analysis on related variables to determine the relationships between them, a qualitative analysis of narratives would provide a much more holistic understanding of “how things happen” on a day-to-day basis. 

Similarly, statistical analysis cannot quite capture the complexities at work in the interactions between people because these are also difficult to quantify and measure. For example, think about the complexity of interactions within a work team, your church, or your family. Social cognition and communication can be incredibly nuanced and variable, which makes the flexible qualitative research approach a superior choice if you want to gain a full appreciation for the dynamics of interaction as a whole. This might also involve exploring the different meanings individuals attach to their experiences and interactions, which would be more clearly relayed in narrative or interview form than on a closed-choice instrument such as a survey.

Example: Exploration of the Processes of Change Following Mindfulness Intervention

A great example of qualitative research on a topic that is tough to quantify is the Hugh-Jones et al. (2018) exploration of mindfulness and work stress. This study provides an excellent illustration of how the focus on complex processes creates a topic that is difficult to capture in numerical terms. The basic topic of mindfulness and work stress is not difficult to quantify, and in fact, the researchers noted that a wealth of quantitative research had been conducted that generally pointed to the positive impact of mindfulness on management of work stress. 

However, what the results of the statistical analysis in these many studies could not offer was in-depth insight into the processes of change employees experienced after attending mindfulness interventions. Statistical analysis can tell us much about what outcomes are likely to be associated with these types of interventions, but how those outcomes came about was still somewhat unclear. The qualitative research method, however, is very well suited to exploring such complexity. 

In this example, Hugh-Jones et al. (2018) used a grounded theory approach to develop a process-based framework based on emergent themes in their qualitative analysis. This resulted in a model with eight distinct dimensions that employees experienced as they progressed from a “starting state” to a “settled in self” state (Hugh-Jones et al., 2018, p. 478). These theoretical dimensions then provide a foundation for development of variables that might be tested using statistical analysis, which again demonstrates the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative research methods. 

Reason #3: Important to Hear Participants’ Accounts in Their Own Words

Another great reason for using qualitative research methods is when it is important to learn about your participants’ experiences from their own perspectives in order to answer your research questions. In addition, you may be wanting to explore how those experiences made them feel and how they interpreted their experiences. Using the flexible and open-ended data collection techniques associated with qualitative research methods is perfect for this type of inquiry (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). 

For example, if your dissertation topic  revolves around unusual experiences or highly emotional topics, it can definitely help to allow your participants to express themselves freely and at length through interviews or written narratives. Clearly, this will yield much more informative and thorough insights on the topic than giving participants a survey. Surveys offer only so many options for response, and if you are not able to anticipate the full range of participants’ responses, using an exploratory qualitative research approach would be ideal for capturing all relevant insights on your questions.

Another important consideration is that providing your participants the opportunity to express themselves freely in a high level of detail can be an empowering experience for them. This is another reason that qualitative research might make sense for your dissertation. Specifically, if you are seeking to give voice to people who have experienced stigma, discrimination, or other forms of marginalization, a qualitative method is a great choice. 

Qualitative research interviews and narratives give participants a large degree of power to define the nature of their experiences and perspectives, which shows respect for them as the experts on their own lives. Many of our dissertation consulting clients are working toward positive social change   for marginalized persons, and using a qualitative research method provides richly informative insights that are important to understand when reshaping policy and practice toward these ends.

Example: Exploration of Experiences of Unhelpful or Harmful Therapy

An example that illustrates how researchers can give voice to participants related to emotionally difficult life events is the study conducted by Bowie et al. (2016). These researchers conducted qualitative research to explore individuals’ experiences with mental health therapy that they had found harmful or unhelpful. The researchers wanted to hear, from the participants’ own perspectives, what they had found unhelpful about their therapy experiences. 

Use of an interview approach that was flexible according to each participant’s accounts allowed Bowie et al. (2016) to learn about specific feelings and opinions in great depth, based on the different experiences each participant had to share. This included what the therapist had done or not done that they found unhelpful or harmful. Bowie et al. also asked participants to share how their therapists’ actions or inactions made them feel, and how the therapy impacted their mental health and broader life. 

Participating in mental health therapy can create a feeling of vulnerability in the patient, and so one can imagine that it may be quite troubling to be treated with disrespect or disregard by a therapist. Because the qualitative research approach empowers participants to share their stories from their own perspectives, it confers power upon participants to define their experiences of poor treatment as they perceived them. Therefore, using a qualitative research and analysis approach for your dissertation would not only yield rich information where this is needed, but it would also avoid objectifying participants by giving them control of their narratives. As this example illustrates, this approach can yield insights that help to shape policy and practice in ways that promote positive social change, which in this case would be more sensitive and responsive therapist behavior.

Reason #4: You’re Interested in the Diversity of Participants’ Experiences

As we have discussed, using a qualitative research method allows for quite a bit of flexibility, both in terms of what questions you ask your participants and how you differentiate each interview through use of probe questions that prompt participants to share their own unique experiences. This flexibility opens up the possibility for you to explore a variety of perspectives and experiences within your dissertation, provided that they all relate to your central research questions (hint: sticking to the semi-structured interview guide helps to ensure this). In quantitative studies, however, the statistical analysis approaches we use condense the various participants’ responses down to one set of numbers—mean, mode, frequencies, etc. For this reason, quantitative methods are not so well suited to examining diversity or variety of responses across participants (aside from measures like range and standard deviation).

If you want to get into more granular detail about diverse experiences and viewpoints, you will need data collection and analysis processes that accommodate such diversity. This is where qualitative analysis shines! Although you can look for commonalities across participants’ responses in terms of major themes, you can also examine discrepancies and variations between participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This potential for highlighting variations in participants’ experiences is also of great value to our dissertation assistance clients who are working toward positive social change in their fields. Understanding such variety of experience helps to shape more socially and culturally responsive policies, practices, interventions, and therapies.

Example: Exploration of Diverse Experiences of Stigma in People With Disabilities

An excellent example of a study that used qualitative research and analysis to illuminate the diverse experiences of participants is one conducted by Pérez-Garín et al. (2018). These researchers conducted qualitative research to explore the perspectives and experiences of people with disabilities related to discrimination and stigma. Although there had been both qualitative and quantitative research  on this topic previously, what the authors noted was that only the common experiences across persons with disabilities had been discussed in prior studies. 

However, Pérez-Garín et al. (2018) recognized that people who have different types of disabilities may have different experiences of discrimination and stigma. The researchers proposed that attending to those differences would help with development of appropriately targeted policies and practices related to persons with disabilities. To explore these potential differences, the researchers conducted interviews with adults with hearing impairments, visual impairments, and physical disabilities. 

Their thematic qualitative analysis findings indicated that there were, indeed, differences in experiences of stigma and discrimination within this group of individuals with disabilities. For example, participants with hearing impairments reported experiencing barriers to social or leisure activities, while participants with visual impairments had experienced overprotection and mockery or bullying. In contrast, participants with physical disabilities reported feeling undervalued and discriminated against in the workplace. As this example illustrates, using a qualitative research method in your dissertation would allow you to illuminate the diversity of experiences among your participants, which can truly help to differentiate policy and practice in ways that are more supportive and accommodating of human diversity.

Reason #5: Important to Understand “The Story” to Answer Your Research Questions

Finally, another case in which qualitative analysis is ideal is when you need to understand a person’s story in full to truly answer your research questions. In fact, a research design   within the qualitative research methods paradigm that deals specifically with stories as the point of interest is often referred to as narrative analysis (Phoenix et al., 2010). Narrative analysis attends to both the structure of participants’ stories and their content, making it possible to examine common threads as well as differences in experiences across participants. This form of qualitative research requires that you obtain in-depth data from each participant; most of our dissertation assistance clients who use narrative analysis find that it helps to keep their samples fairly small because of this. 

Using a smaller sample allows you to go into great depth with each person about their story. For example, you might be interested in how complex processes took place over time in your participants’ lives, how different key events were sequenced, and how events took place across different settings. You may also want to understand how the participant thought about or reacted to those experiences, and how those reactions shaped their story. The in-depth nature of narrative analysis data collection permits you to explore these complexities in great detail.

Example: Latino College Students’ Narratives Related to the Influence of School Counselors

To illustrate, consider Ballysingh’s (2019) use of a qualitative research method to explore Latino college students’ stories related to their choice to enroll in college. The researcher chose a narrative analysis approach, which was based on multiple, in-depth interviews with participants about their full life histories leading up to their decisions to go to college. Ballysingh’s interest was in the role of the school counselor—whether empowering or disempowering—in each participant’s decision to apply to college. 

To fully appreciate how counselors had affected participants in this regard, it was important to understand each individual’s broader life context with regard to the possibility of college in their futures. Using a qualitative research approach to elicit these in-depth narratives from participants allowed Ballysingh (2019) to identify three primary storylines across participants. What they learned was that counselors sometimes encouraged but other times discouraged college application. The participants’ varied reactions to counselors then shaped their own narratives and life courses moving forward.

As the examples above illustrate, conducting qualitative research can be fascinating and rewarding in terms of the richness of findings you can uncover. If you are like many of our dissertation consulting  clients, you dream of using your dissertation to support social change that will ultimately help others in your community or field of practice. A qualitative research approach enables you to privilege the voices of your participants, to validate diverse perspectives and experiences, and to truly hear the stories of the individuals you include in your research. Our qualitative methods experts  would be honored to lend any support you might need to make your dissertation dream a reality, and we hope you are feeling inspired about the journey ahead!

Ballysingh, T. A. (2019). The varied college pathways of Latino young adults: A narrative study of empowerment theory.  Professional School Counseling ,  23 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X19877146

Bowie, C., McLeod, J., & McLeod, J. (2016). ‘It was almost like the opposite of what I needed’: A qualitative exploration of client experiences of unhelpful therapy.  Counselling and Psychotherapy Research ,  16 (2), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12066

Cassol, H., Pétré, B., Degrange, S., Martial, C., Charland-Verville, V., Lallier, F., Bragard, I., Guillaume, M., & Laureys, S. (2018). Qualitative thematic analysis of the phenomenology of near-death experiences.  PloS One ,  13 (2), e0193001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193001

Hugh-Jones, S., Rose, S., Koutsopoulou, G. Z., & Simms-Ellis, R. (2018). How is stress reduced by a workplace mindfulness intervention? A qualitative study conceptualising experiences of change.  Mindfulness ,  9 (2), 474-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0790-2

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . John Wiley & Sons.

Pérez-Garín, D., Recio, P., Magallares, A., Molero, F., & García-Ael, C. (2018). Perceived discrimination and emotional reactions in people with different types of disabilities: A qualitative approach.  The Spanish Journal of Psychology ,  21 , 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017.sjp.2018.13

Phoenix, C., Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2010). Narrative analysis in aging studies: A typology for consideration. Journal of Aging Studies, 24 , 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2008.06.003

Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8 (3), 238-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070

Ritchie, J., & Ormston, R. (2013). The applications of qualitative research to social research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 27-45). Sage.

Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative methods: What are they and why use them?  Health Services Research ,  34 (5 Pt 2), 1101-1118. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089055/pdf/hsresearch00022-0025.pdf

CALL ONEPOLL ON 020 7138 3041

• Consultancy
• Data storytelling
• Audience Coverage
• Case Studies
• Reports & data visualisations
• Inside Stories
• Insightfully MR
• Get in Touch

Qualitative research: What is it and why should you use it?

What is qualitative research.

For those more familiar with quantitative research techniques, the methods used in qualitative research may, at first look, seem ineffective. However, it is important to realise that qualitative research is not trying to answer the same questions that are asked in quantitative research.

In short, in comparison to quantitative, qualitative research methods focus on words rather than numbers, depth rather than breadth. Its methods are exploratory; they seek to unearth the opinions, thoughts and feelings of respondents. It is most commonly used to help inform new concepts, theories and products. First developed within the social sciences, qualitative research is now widely used to inform market research, by gaining unique consumer insight from a wealth of data.

One particular difference between qualitative and quantitative research is that the former requires much more in-depth involvement from the qualitative researchers. It is their interpretation which shapes the outcome.

Why choose online qualitative research?

Now you know the basics of qualitative research, why should you use it to conduct your project? Here are some of the main benefits:

Qualitative studies give you a unique depth of understanding which is difficult to gain from a closed question survey. Respondents are able to freely disclose their experiences, thoughts and feelings without constraint. Qualitative methods offer a dynamic approach to research, where the researcher has an opportunity to follow up on answers given by respondents in real time, generating valuable conversation around a subject – something which isn’t possible with a structured survey. Whilst the facts and figures generated by quantitative research are undoubtedly useful, you can often be left looking for the ‘why’ behind the stats. This is where qualitative research is key, as respondents have the opportunity to freely elaborate on their answers.

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted“ (Albert Einstein)

Online qualitative research methods are a relatively new approach within the field but come with their own unique benefits. Online methods make qualitative research more accessible by taking away the constraints of traditional techniques. For example, collecting data via a traditional focus group can be time-consuming and costly, whereas conducting an online focus group removes the cost of participant travel, venues and transcriptions, as well as logistically being easier to manage.

Furthermore, by not being face-to-face with the moderator, respondents are likely to feel anonymous and therefore are more likely to give the most honest answers. This also helps alleviate moderator bias; body language, expressions, tone of language are all possible sources of bias in a face-to-face environment, something which is eradicated by online methods. There are many ways in which online qualitative techniques can specifically be useful for conducting market and consumer research. For example, if a brand needs to clarify or test new marketing messages, focus groups can be the perfect way to gain honest feedback. Qualitative methods can also be used to help construct new ideas for how to improve or fine tune a product, as well as learning how a brand matches its target audience. Overall, for any in-depth insight into how a brand/product is viewed by the general consumer, qualitative research has the perfect tools.

Whilst these methods aren’t going to give you statistics from large sample sizes which you can extrapolate across a population, it will give you the perfect tools to explore a new concept, or gain feedback on a new idea. It is also a great starting point to develop ideas which will later inform your quantitative research.

Online qualitative methods

There are a wealth of online qualitative methods you can use to gain product and customer insight. Here are a few common techniques:

Focus Groups:  This is a useful way to generate guided discussion around the topics of your choice. The moderator of the group would begin the discussion using text or video, allowing respondents to construct a conversation, generating data in real time. The moderator’s role would be to ensure conversation is on track and relevant, whilst also probing for deeper insight where appropriate.

Discussion boards:  Similar to focus groups, discussion boards are useful when wanting to collect dynamic data over a longer period of time. Much like an online forum, the researcher can prompt a topic for discussion, allowing respondents to contribute and build on each other’s thoughts and ideas. This is an interactive way to produce qualitative data, and allows the researcher to have as much or little input as needed, through the use of prompts and probing. A discussion board could be active for several days to weeks.

These methods would be a great choice for generating feedback on a new product or marketing message; creating conversation between a diverse group of people, will help you understand different views of the product from various perspectives, and ensure you really get to know your customer.

Diaries and Journals:  The use of diary or journal entries are a great way of generating qualitative data over a longer period of time. Respondents have the opportunity to upload entries at requested time intervals e.g. every day or once a week, recording their experiences and commenting on any changes of opinion.

This method would be of particular use within consumer research when wanting to understand the experience of a product over a period of time. For example, if you were looking to track the usage and experience of an app or website over a number of weeks, this would help gain insight into how it would be used by a consumer in the real world.

Pictures and Video:  Other interactive qualitative techniques include the use of pictures and videos. Respondents are able to upload photos or short video clips to help illustrate their experiences. For example, if providing a feedback on a product, respondents could provide video footage to complement their written word.

So now you have generated your qualitative data, what happens next? With such rich, detailed data, in-depth analysis is necessary to generate the key themes and insight from the research.  Once these key themes are formulated, the results can help inform the next stages in the development of a product or marketing message or help to narrow down your target audience.

In addition, your research may have prompted some new thoughts and concepts which you wish to explore, generating the basis for a quantitative survey to understand if these opinions are typical of a larger population.

In summary, qualitative research methods sit perfectly alongside quantitative methods to offer a unique opportunity to gain in-depth insight from consumers. What quantitative research lacks in depth of meaning, qualitative makes up for. Having access to both methods of research allows the ability for all research needs to be fulfilled.

What is qualitative research? For those more familiar with quantitative research techniques, the methods used in qualitative research may, at […]

Privacy preference center, privacy preferences.

23 Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative Research

Investigating methodologies. Taking a closer look at ethnographic, anthropological, or naturalistic techniques. Data mining through observer recordings. This is what the world of qualitative research is all about. It is the comprehensive and complete data that is collected by having the courage to ask an open-ended question.

Print media has used the principles of qualitative research for generations. Now more industries are seeing the advantages that come from the extra data that is received by asking more than a “yes” or “no” question.

The advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research are quite unique. On one hand, you have the perspective of the data that is being collected. On the other hand, you have the techniques of the data collector and their own unique observations that can alter the information in subtle ways.

That’s why these key points are so important to consider.

What Are the Advantages of Qualitative Research?

1. Subject materials can be evaluated with greater detail. There are many time restrictions that are placed on research methods. The goal of a time restriction is to create a measurable outcome so that metrics can be in place. Qualitative research focuses less on the metrics of the data that is being collected and more on the subtleties of what can be found in that information. This allows for the data to have an enhanced level of detail to it, which can provide more opportunities to glean insights from it during examination.

2. Research frameworks can be fluid and based on incoming or available data. Many research opportunities must follow a specific pattern of questioning, data collection, and information reporting. Qualitative research offers a different approach. It can adapt to the quality of information that is being gathered. If the available data does not seem to be providing any results, the research can immediately shift gears and seek to gather data in a new direction. This offers more opportunities to gather important clues about any subject instead of being confined to a limited and often self-fulfilling perspective.

3. Qualitative research data is based on human experiences and observations. Humans have two very different operating systems. One is a subconscious method of operation, which is the fast and instinctual observations that are made when data is present. The other operating system is slower and more methodical, wanting to evaluate all sources of data before deciding. Many forms of research rely on the second operating system while ignoring the instinctual nature of the human mind. Qualitative research doesn’t ignore the gut instinct. It embraces it and the data that can be collected is often better for it.

4. Gathered data has a predictive quality to it. One of the common mistakes that occurs with qualitative research is an assumption that a personal perspective can be extrapolated into a group perspective. This is only possible when individuals grow up in similar circumstances, have similar perspectives about the world, and operate with similar goals. When these groups can be identified, however, the gathered individualistic data can have a predictive quality for those who are in a like-minded group. At the very least, the data has a predictive quality for the individual from whom it was gathered.

5. Qualitative research operates within structures that are fluid. Because the data being gathered through this type of research is based on observations and experiences, an experienced researcher can follow-up interesting answers with additional questions. Unlike other forms of research that require a specific framework with zero deviation, researchers can follow any data tangent which makes itself known and enhance the overall database of information that is being collected.

6. Data complexities can be incorporated into generated conclusions. Although our modern world tends to prefer statistics and verifiable facts, we cannot simply remove the human experience from the equation. Different people will have remarkably different perceptions about any statistic, fact, or event. This is because our unique experiences generate a different perspective of the data that we see. These complexities, when gathered into a singular database, can generate conclusions with more depth and accuracy, which benefits everyone.

7. Qualitative research is an open-ended process. When a researcher is properly prepared, the open-ended structures of qualitative research make it possible to get underneath superficial responses and rational thoughts to gather information from an individual’s emotional response. This is critically important to this form of researcher because it is an emotional response which often drives a person’s decisions or influences their behavior.

8. Creativity becomes a desirable quality within qualitative research. It can be difficult to analyze data that is obtained from individual sources because many people subconsciously answer in a way that they think someone wants. This desire to “please” another reduces the accuracy of the data and suppresses individual creativity. By embracing the qualitative research method, it becomes possible to encourage respondent creativity, allowing people to express themselves with authenticity. In return, the data collected becomes more accurate and can lead to predictable outcomes.

9. Qualitative research can create industry-specific insights. Brands and businesses today need to build relationships with their core demographics to survive. The terminology, vocabulary, and jargon that consumers use when looking at products or services is just as important as the reputation of the brand that is offering them. If consumers are receiving one context, but the intention of the brand is a different context, then the miscommunication can artificially restrict sales opportunities. Qualitative research gives brands access to these insights so they can accurately communicate their value propositions.

10. Smaller sample sizes are used in qualitative research, which can save on costs. Many qualitative research projects can be completed quickly and on a limited budget because they typically use smaller sample sizes that other research methods. This allows for faster results to be obtained so that projects can move forward with confidence that only good data is able to provide.

11. Qualitative research provides more content for creatives and marketing teams. When your job involves marketing, or creating new campaigns that target a specific demographic, then knowing what makes those people can be quite challenging. By going through the qualitative research approach, it becomes possible to congregate authentic ideas that can be used for marketing and other creative purposes. This makes communication between the two parties to be handled with more accuracy, leading to greater level of happiness for all parties involved.

12. Attitude explanations become possible with qualitative research. Consumer patterns can change on a dime sometimes, leaving a brand out in the cold as to what just happened. Qualitative research allows for a greater understanding of consumer attitudes, providing an explanation for events that occur outside of the predictive matrix that was developed through previous research. This allows the optimal brand/consumer relationship to be maintained.

What Are the Disadvantages of Qualitative Research?

1. The quality of the data gathered in qualitative research is highly subjective. This is where the personal nature of data gathering in qualitative research can also be a negative component of the process. What one researcher might feel is important and necessary to gather can be data that another researcher feels is pointless and won’t spend time pursuing it. Having individual perspectives and including instinctual decisions can lead to incredibly detailed data. It can also lead to data that is generalized or even inaccurate because of its reliance on researcher subjectivisms.

2. Data rigidity is more difficult to assess and demonstrate. Because individual perspectives are often the foundation of the data that is gathered in qualitative research, it is more difficult to prove that there is rigidity in the information that is collective. The human mind tends to remember things in the way it wants to remember them. That is why memories are often looked at fondly, even if the actual events that occurred may have been somewhat disturbing at the time. This innate desire to look at the good in things makes it difficult for researchers to demonstrate data validity.

3. Mining data gathered by qualitative research can be time consuming. The number of details that are often collected while performing qualitative research are often overwhelming. Sorting through that data to pull out the key points can be a time-consuming effort. It is also a subjective effort because what one researcher feels is important may not be pulled out by another researcher. Unless there are some standards in place that cannot be overridden, data mining through a massive number of details can almost be more trouble than it is worth in some instances.

4. Qualitative research creates findings that are valuable, but difficult to present. Presenting the findings which come out of qualitative research is a bit like listening to an interview on CNN. The interviewer will ask a question to the interviewee, but the goal is to receive an answer that will help present a database which presents a specific outcome to the viewer. The goal might be to have a viewer watch an interview and think, “That’s terrible. We need to pass a law to change that.” The subjective nature of the information, however, can cause the viewer to think, “That’s wonderful. Let’s keep things the way they are right now.” That is why findings from qualitative research are difficult to present. What a research gleans from the data can be very different from what an outside observer gleans from the data.

5. Data created through qualitative research is not always accepted. Because of the subjective nature of the data that is collected in qualitative research, findings are not always accepted by the scientific community. A second independent qualitative research effort which can produce similar findings is often necessary to begin the process of community acceptance.

6. Researcher influence can have a negative effect on the collected data. The quality of the data that is collected through qualitative research is highly dependent on the skills and observation of the researcher. If a researcher has a biased point of view, then their perspective will be included with the data collected and influence the outcome. There must be controls in place to help remove the potential for bias so the data collected can be reviewed with integrity. Otherwise, it would be possible for a researcher to make any claim and then use their bias through qualitative research to prove their point.

7. Replicating results can be very difficult with qualitative research. The scientific community wants to see results that can be verified and duplicated to accept research as factual. In the world of qualitative research, this can be very difficult to accomplish. Not only do you have the variability of researcher bias for which to account within the data, but there is also the informational bias that is built into the data itself from the provider. This means the scope of data gathering can be extremely limited, even if the structure of gathering information is fluid, because of each unique perspective.

8. Difficult decisions may require repetitive qualitative research periods. The smaller sample sizes of qualitative research may be an advantage, but they can also be a disadvantage for brands and businesses which are facing a difficult or potentially controversial decision. A small sample is not always representative of a larger population demographic, even if there are deep similarities with the individuals involve. This means a follow-up with a larger quantitative sample may be necessary so that data points can be tracked with more accuracy, allowing for a better overall decision to be made.

9. Unseen data can disappear during the qualitative research process. The amount of trust that is placed on the researcher to gather, and then draw together, the unseen data that is offered by a provider is enormous. The research is dependent upon the skill of the researcher being able to connect all the dots. If the researcher can do this, then the data can be meaningful and help brands and progress forward with their mission. If not, there is no way to alter course until after the first results are received. Then a new qualitative process must begin.

10. Researchers must have industry-related expertise. You can have an excellent researcher on-board for a project, but if they are not familiar with the subject matter, they will have a difficult time gathering accurate data. For qualitative research to be accurate, the interviewer involved must have specific skills, experiences, and expertise in the subject matter being studied. They must also be familiar with the material being evaluated and have the knowledge to interpret responses that are received. If any piece of this skill set is missing, the quality of the data being gathered can be open to interpretation.

11. Qualitative research is not statistically representative. The one disadvantage of qualitative research which is always present is its lack of statistical representation. It is a perspective-based method of research only, which means the responses given are not measured. Comparisons can be made and this can lead toward the duplication which may be required, but for the most part, quantitative data is required for circumstances which need statistical representation and that is not part of the qualitative research process.

The advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research make it possible to gather and analyze individualistic data on deeper levels. This makes it possible to gain new insights into consumer thoughts, demographic behavioral patterns, and emotional reasoning processes. When a research can connect the dots of each information point that is gathered, the information can lead to personalized experiences, better value in products and services, and ongoing brand development.

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
• Korean J Med Educ
• v.29(2); 2017 Jun

The qualitative orientation in medical education research

Qualitative research is very important in educational research as it addresses the “how” and “why” research questions and enables deeper understanding of experiences, phenomena and context. Qualitative research allows you to ask questions that cannot be easily put into numbers to understand human experience. Getting at the everyday realities of some social phenomenon and studying important questions as they are really practiced helps extend knowledge and understanding. To do so, you need to understand the philosophical stance of qualitative research and work from this to develop the research question, study design, data collection methods and data analysis. In this article, I provide an overview of the assumptions underlying qualitative research and the role of the researcher in the qualitative process. I then go on to discuss the type of research objectives which are common in qualitative research, then introduce the main qualitative designs, data collection tools, and finally the basics of qualitative analysis. I introduce the criteria by which you can judge the quality of qualitative research. Many classic references are cited in this article, and I urge you to seek out some of these further reading to inform your qualitative research program.

Introduction

When we speak of “quantitative” or “qualitative” methodologies, we are in the final analysis speaking about an interrelated set of assumptions about the social world which are philosophical, ideological, and epistemological. They encompass more than just data collection methodologies [ 1 ].

It is easy to assume that the differences between quantitative and qualitative research are solely about how data is collected—the randomized controlled trial versus ethnographic fieldwork, the cohort study versus the semi-structured interview. However, quantitative and qualitative approaches make different assumptions about the world [ 2 ], about how science should be conducted, and about what constitutes legitimate problems, solutions and criteria of “proof” [ 3 ].

Why is it important to understand differences in assumptions, or philosophies, of research? Why not just go ahead and do a survey or carry out some interviews? First, the assumptions behind the research tools you choose provide guidance for conducting your research. They indicate whether you should be an objective observer or whether you have a contributory role in the research process. They guide whether or not you must slavishly ask each person in a study the same questions or whether your questions can evolve as the study progresses. Second, you may wish to submit your work as a dissertation or as a research paper to be considered for publication in a journal. If so, the chances are that examiners, editors, and reviewers might have knowledge of different research philosophies from yours and may be unwilling to accept the legitimacy of your approach unless you can make its assumptions clear. Third, each research paradigm has its own norms and standards, its accepted ways of doing things. You need to “do things right”. Finally, understanding the theoretical assumptions of the research approach helps you recognize what the data collection and analysis methods you are working with do well and what they do less well, and lets you design your research to take full advantage of their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses.

In this short article, I will introduce the assumptions of qualitative research and their implications for research questions, study design, methods and tools, and analysis and interpretation. Readers who wish a comparison between qualitative and quantitative approaches may find Cleland [ 4 ] useful.

Ontology and epistemology

We start with a consideration of the ontology (assumptions about the nature of reality) and epistemology (assumptions about the nature of knowledge) of qualitative research.

Qualitative research approaches are used to understand everyday human experience in all its complexity and in all its natural settings [ 5 ]. To do this, qualitative research conforms to notions that reality is socially constructed and that inquiry is unavoidably value-laden [ 6 ]. The first of these, reality is socially constructed, means reality cannot be measured directly—it exists as perceived by people and by the observer. In other words, reality is relative and multiple, perceived through socially constructed and subjective interpretations [ 7 ]. For example, what I see as an exciting event may be seen as a threat by other people. What is considered a cultural ritual in my country may be thought of as quite bizarre elsewhere. Qualitative research is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced, or constructed. Mann and MacLeod [ 8 ] provide a very good overview of social constructivism which is a excellent starting point for understanding this.

The idea of people seeing things in diverse ways also holds true in research process, hence inquiry being valued-laden. Different people have different views of the same thing depending on their upbringing and other experiences, their training, and professional background. Someone who has been trained as a social scientist may “see” things differently from someone who has been medically trained. A woman may see things differently to a man. A more experienced researcher will see things differently from a novice. A qualitative researcher will have very different views of the nature of “evidence” than a quantitative researcher. All these viewpoints are valid. Moreover, different researchers can study the same topic and try to find solutions to the same challenges using different study designs—and hence come up with different interpretations and different recommendations. For example, if your position is that learning is about individual, cognitive, and acquisitive processes, then you are likely to research the use of simulation training in surgery in terms of the effectiveness and efficacy of training related to mastery of technical skills [ 9 , 10 ]. However, if your stance is that learning is inherently a social activity, one which involves interactions between people or groups of people, then you will look to see how the relationships between faculty members, participants and activities during a simulation, and the wider social and cultural context, influence learning [ 11 , 12 ].

Whether researchers are explicit about it or not, ontological and epistemological assumptions will underpin how they study aspects of teaching and learning. Differences in these assumptions shape not only study design, but also what emerges as data, how this data can be analysed and even the conclusions that can be drawn and recommendations that can be made from the study. This is referred to as worldview, defined by Creswell [ 13 ] as “a general orientation about the world and the nature of research that a researcher holds.” McMillan [ 14 ] gives a very good explanation of the importance of this phenomenon in relation to medical education research. There is increasing expectation that researchers make their worldview explicit in research papers.

The research objective

Given the underlying premise that reality is socially constructed, qualitative research focuses on answering “how” and “why” questions, of understanding a phenomena or a context. For example, “Our study aimed to answer the research question: why do assessors fail to report underperformance in medical students? [ 15 ]”, “The aim of this work was to investigate how widening participation policy is translated and interpreted for implementation at the level of the individual medical school [ 4 ].”

Common verbs in qualitative research questions are identify, explore, describe, understand, and explain. If your research question includes words like test or measure or compare in your objectives, these are more appropriate for quantitative methods, as they are better suited to these types of aims. Bezuidenhout and van Schalkwyk [ 16 ] provide a good guide to developing and refining your research question. Lingard [ 17 ]’s notion of joining the conversation and the problem-gap-hook heuristic are also very useful in terms of thinking about your question and setting it out in the introduction to a paper in such a way as to interest journal editors and readers.

Do not think formulating a research question is easy. Maxwell [ 18 ] gives a good overview of some of the potential issues including being too general, making assumptions about the nature of the issue/problem and using questions which focus the study on difference rather than process. Developing relevant, focused, answerable research questions takes time and generating good questions requires that you pay attention not just to the questions themselves but to their connections with all the other components of the study (the conceptual lens/theory, the methods) [ 18 ].

Theory can be applied to qualitative studies at different times during the research process, from the selection of the research phenomenon to the write-up of the results. The application of theory at different points can be described as follows [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]: (1) Theory frames the study questions, develops the philosophical underpinnings of the study, and makes assumptions to justify or rationalize the methodological approach. (2) Qualitative investigations relate the target phenomenon to the theory. (3) Theory provides a comparative context or framework for data analysis and interpretation. (4) Theory provides triangulation of study findings.

Schwartz-Barcott et al. [ 20 ] characterized those processes as theoretical selectivity (the linking of selected concepts with existing theories), theoretical integration (the incorporation and testing of selected concepts within a particular theoretical perspective), and theory creation (the generation of relational statements and the development of a new theory). Thus, theory can be the outcome of the research project as well as the starting point [ 22 ].

However, the emerging qualitative researcher may wish a little more direction on how to use theory in practice. I direct you to two papers: Reeves et al. [ 23 ] and Bordage [ 24 ]. These authors clearly explain the utility of theory, or conceptual frameworks, in qualitative research, how theory can give researchers different “lenses” through which to look at complicated problems and social issues, focusing their attention on different aspects of the data and providing a framework within which to conduct their analysis. Bordage [ 24 ] states that “conceptual frameworks represent ways of thinking about a problem or a study, or ways of representing how complex things work the way they do. Different frameworks will emphasise different variables and outcomes.” He presents an example in his paper and illustrates how different lens highlight or emphasise different aspects of the data. Other authors suggest that two theories are potentially better than one in exploring complex social issues [ 25 ]. There is an example of this in one of my papers, where we used the theories of Bourdieu [ 26 ] and Engestrom [ 27 , 28 ] nested within an overarching framework of complexity theory [ 29 ] to help us understand learning at a surgical bootcamp. However, I suggest that for focused studies and emerging educational researchers, one theoretical framework or lens is probably sufficient.

So how to identify an appropriate theory, and when to use it? It is crucially important to read widely, to explore lots of theories, from disciplines such as (but not only) education, psychology, sociology, and economics, to see what theory is available and what may be suitable for your study. Carefully consider any theory, check its assumptions [ 30 ] are congruent with your approach, question, and context before final selection [ 31 ] before deciding which theory to use. The time you spend exploring theory will be time well spent in terms not just of interpreting a specific data set but also to broadening your knowledge. The second question, when to use it, depends on the nature of the study, but generally the use of theory in qualitative research tends to be inductive; that is, building explanations from the ground up, based on what is discovered. This typically means that theory is brought in at the analysis stage, as a lens to interpret data.

In the qualitative approach, the activities of collecting and analyzing data, developing and modifying theory, and elaborating or refocusing the research questions, are usually going on more or less simultaneously, each influencing all of the others for a useful model of qualitative research design [ 18 ]. The researcher may need to reconsider or modify any design decision during the study in response to new developments. In this way, qualitative research design is less linear than quantitative research, which is much more step-wise and fixed.

This is not the same as no structure or plan. Most qualitative projects are pre-structured at least in terms of the equivalent of a research protocol, setting out what you are doing (aims and objectives), why (why is this important), and how (theoretical underpinning, design, methods, and analysis). I have provided a brief overview of common approaches to qualitative research design below and direct you to the numerous excellent textbooks which go into this in more detail [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].

There are five basic categories of qualitative research design: ethnography, narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, and case study [ 13 , 32 ].

2. Ethnography

In ethnography, you immerse yourself in the target participants’ environment to understand the goals, cultures, challenges, motivations, and themes that emerge. Ethnography has its roots in cultural anthropology where researchers immerse themselves within a culture, often for years. Through multiple data collection approaches—observations, interviews and documentary data, ethnographic research offers a qualitative approach with the potential to yield detailed and comprehensive accounts of different social phenomenon (actions, behavior, interactions, and beliefs). Rather than relying on interviews or surveys, you experience the environment first hand, and sometimes as a “participant observer” which gives opportunity to gather empirical insights into social practices which are normally “hidden” from the public gaze. Reeves et al. [ 36 ] give an excellent guide to ethnography in medical education which is essential reading if you are interested in using this approach.

3. Narrative

The narrative approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals to form a cohesive story. You conduct in-depth interviews, read documents, and look for themes; in other words, how does an individual story illustrate the larger life influences that created it. Often interviews are conducted over weeks, months, or even years, but the final narrative does not need to be in chronological order. Rather it can be presented as a story (or narrative) with themes, and can reconcile conflicting stories and highlight tensions and challenges which can be opportunities for innovation.

4. Phenomenology

Phenomenology is concerned with the study of experience from the perspective of the individual, “bracketing” taken-for-granted assumptions and usual ways of perceiving. Phenomenological approaches emphasise the importance of personal perspective and interpretation. As such they are powerful for understanding subjective experience, gaining insights into people’s motivations and actions, and cutting through the clutter of taken-for-granted assumptions and conventional wisdom.

Phenomenological approaches can be applied to single cases or to selected samples. A variety of methods can be used in phenomenologically-based research, including interviews, conversations, participant observation, action research, focus meetings, and analysis of personal texts. Beware though—phenomenological research generates a large quantity data for analysis.

The phenomenological approach is used in medical education research and there are some good articles which will familiarise you with this approach [ 37 , 38 ].

5. Grounded theory

Whereas a phenomenological study looks to describe the essence of an activity or event, grounded theory looks to provide an explanation or theory behind the events. Its main thrust is to generate theories regarding social phenomena: that is, to develop higher level understanding that is “grounded” in, or derived from, a systematic analysis of data [ 39 ]. Grounded theory is appropriate when the study of social interactions or experiences aims to explain a process, not to test or verify an existing theory. Rather, the theory emerges through a close and careful analysis of the data.

The key features of grounded theory are its iterative study design, theoretical (purposive) sampling, and cycles of simultaneous data collection and analysis, where analysis informs the next cycle of data collection. In keeping with this iterative design, the sample is not set at the outset but is selected purposefully as the analysis progresses; participants are chosen for their ability to confirm or challenge an emerging theory. As issues of interest are noted in the data, they are compared with other examples for similarities and differences.

Grounded theory was first proposed by Glaser and Strauss [ 40 ] in 1967 but since then there have been many interpretations of this approach, each with their own processes and norms [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

Beware—grounded theory is often done very badly, and numerous studies are rejected by journals because they claim to use grounded theory but do not actually do so, or do so badly.

6. Case study

Researcher Yin [ 44 ] defines the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. The case study method enables a researcher to closely examine the data within a specific context—for example, in a small geographical area or a very limited number of individuals as the subjects of study. Case studies explore and investigate contemporary real-life phenomenon through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions, and their relationships. A case study involves a deep understanding through multiple types of data sources. For example, we used case study methodology recently to explore the nature of the clinical learning environment in a general surgical unit, and used both documents and interviews as data sources. Case studies can be explanatory, exploratory, or describing an event [ 44 ] and case study design can be very open or more structured [ 45 ]. Case studies are a useful approach where the focus is to explain the complexities of real life situations.

While the five methods generally use similar data collection techniques (observation, interviews, and reviewing text—see below), the purpose of the study differentiates them.

Data collection methods

The qualitative methods most commonly used for research purposes can be classified in three broad categories: (1) interviews (individual or group), (2) observation methods, and (3) document review.

The qualitative research interview seeks to describe and gain understanding of certain themes in the life world of the subjects. Interviews can be organised one-to-one or group (focus groups) depending on the topic under study, the cultural context, and the aims of the project. Observational data collection in qualitative research involves the detailed observation of people and events to learn about behaviors and interactions in natural settings [ 46 ]. Such study designs are useful when the study goal is to understand cultural aspects of a setting or phenomenon [ 47 ], when the situation of interest is hidden, (tacit), or when subjects in the setting appear to have notably different views to other groups. Written materials or documents such as institutional records, personal diaries, and historical public documents may also serve as a valuable source of secondary data, providing insight into the lives and experiences of the group under study. For example, in one of my recent studies we used document analysis to uncover the thinking behind the design of a new medical school, then carried out interviews with “users” of the new building to explore how the intentions of the planners played out in reality. However, this is only one way of incorporating document analysis into a study: see Bowen [ 48 ] for an excellent introduction to the purpose and practicalities of document review within qualitative research.

See Dicicco-Bloom and Crabtree [ 49 ] for a useful summary of the content and process of the qualitative research interview, Creswell [ 50 ] for further discussion of the many different approaches in qualitative research and their common characteristics.

1. Data management

Qualitative research may use some form of quantification, but statistical forms of analysis are not central [ 51 ]. Instead, qualitative data analysis aims to uncover emerging themes, patterns, concepts, insights, and understandings [ 52 ]. The data are allowed to “speak for themselves” by the emergence of conceptual categories and descriptive themes. Trying to squeeze narratives into boxes (like “0” and “1”) would result in the loss of contextualisation and narrative layering. The researcher must immerse themselves in the data in order to be able to see meaningful patterns and themes, making notes as they go through the processes of data collection and analysis, and then using these notes to guide the analysis strategy.

Qualitative data has to be managed before it can be analysed—you can generate a lot of data from just a few interviews or observations! You may want to use a specialist qualitative database to facilitate data management and analysis. NVivo is a well-known qualitative data analysis software package (note that qualitative software packages enable you to make and store notes, and explanations of your codes, so you do not need to juggle bits of paper and electronic data files). These and similar databases are available commercially (i.e., at a cost) and are used widely by universities. The choice of database may be dictated by the resources of your institution, your personal preference, and/or what technical support is available locally. However, if you do not have access to qualitative data management software, then use paper and pencil: read and re-read transcripts, take notes on specifics and the bigger patterns, and label different themes with different coloured pen. You do all this in a software package anyway, as data management software does not describe or analyse your data for you. See Cleland et al. [ 53 ] for comprehensive guidance on how to use qualitative databases in education research.

Data analysis

While bearing in mind that qualitative data collection and analysis are iterative rather than linear (see earlier), Miles and Huberman [ 54 ] explain the process of qualitative data analysis as (1) data reduction (extracting the essence), (2) data display (organizing for meaning), and (3) drawing conclusions (explaining the findings).

Data analysis usually follows an inductive approach where the data are allowed to “speak for themselves” by the emergence of conceptual categories and descriptive themes. The researcher must be open to multiple possibilities or ways to think about a problem, engaging in “mental excursions” using multiple stimuli, “side-tracking” or “zigzagging,” changing patterns of thinking, making linkages between the “seemingly unconnected,” and “playing at it,” all with the intention of “opening the world to us in some way” [ 52 ]. The researcher must immerse themselves in the data in order to be able to see meaningful patterns and themes, making notes as they go through the processes of data collection and analysis, and then using these notes to guide the analysis strategy and the development of a coding framework.

In this way, good qualitative research has a logical chain of reasoning, multiple sources of converging evidence to support an explanation, and rules out rival hypotheses with convincing arguments and solid data. The wider literature and theory are used to derive analytical frameworks as the process of analysis develops and different interpretations of the data are likely to be considered before the final argument is built. For example, one of our own studies aimed to explore how widening access policy is translated and implemented at the level of individual medical schools [ 4 ]. Data was collected via individual interviews with key personnel. We initially conducted a primary level thematic analysis to determine themes. After the themes emerged, and following further team discussion, we explored the literature, identified and considered various theories, in some depth, before identifying the most appropriate theory or conceptual lens for a secondary, theory-driven analysis.

There are some excellent text books which discuss qualitative data analysis in detail [ 35 , 55 ].

Judging the quality of research

There are various criteria by which you can judge the quality of qualitative research. These link to efforts by the research team to consider their findings. The most common ways of doing so are triangulation, respondent validation, reflexivity, detail and process, and fair dealing [ 56 ] (but see also Varpio et al. [ 57 ] for a detailed discussion of the limitations of some of these methods).

Triangulation compares the results from either two or more different methods of data collection (for example, interviews and observation) or, more simply, two or more data sources (for example, interviews with different people). The researcher looks for patterns of convergence to develop or corroborate an overall interpretation. This is as a way of ensuring comprehensiveness. Respondent validation, or “member checking,” includes techniques in which the investigator’s account is compared with those of the research subjects to establish the level of correspondence between the two sets. Study participants’ reactions to the analyses are then incorporated into the study findings. Providing a clear account of the process of data collection and analysis is important. By the end of the study, it should be possible to provide a clear account of how early, simple coding evolved into more sophisticated coding structures and thence into clearly defined concepts and explanations for the data collected. Reflexivity is discussed earlier but in terms of analysis reflexivity means sensitivity to the ways in which the researcher and the research process have shaped the collected data, including the role of prior assumptions and experience. These two points address credibility, whether the study has been conducted well and the findings seem reasonable. It is important to pay attention to “negative cases,” data that contradict, or seem to contradict, the emerging explanation of the phenomena under study. These can be a very useful source of information in terms of refining the analysis and thinking beyond the obvious. The final technique is to ensure that the research design explicitly incorporates a wide range of different perspectives. In practice this can mean presenting data from a wide range of diverse participants. A very practical point is worth mentioning here—any reviewer will want to see quotes labelled in some way; for example, P11FFG2 would be participant 11, female, focus group 2). This helps the reader see that your data does not just represent the view of one or two people, but that there is indeed some sort of pattern or commonality to report.

Guba and Lincoln [ 58 ] provide the following criteria for judging qualitative research: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. I direct you to the original resource and to a very good explanation of these criteria in Mann and MacLeod [ 8 ].

Qualitative research is very important in educational research as it addresses the “how” and “why” research questions and enables deeper understanding of experiences, phenomena, and context. Qualitative research allows you to ask questions that cannot be easily put into numbers to understand human experience. Getting at the everyday realities of some social phenomenon and studying important questions as they are really practiced helps answer big questions. To do so, you need to understand the philosophical stance of qualitative research and work from this to develop the research question, study design, data collection methods, and data analysis.