Department of Sociology s5
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
AN INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
PREPARED BY
CHRISTINA HUGHES
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
WHAT IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?
AN INTRODUCTION
•
Qualitative research is empirical research where the data are not in the form of numbers. (Punch, 1998: 4)
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials - case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts - that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand. (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994: 2)
Qualitative research is ... grounded in a philosophical position which is broadly `interpretivist' in the sense that it is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced or produced ... based on methods of data generation which are flexible and sensitive to the social context in which data are produced (rather than rigidly standardized or structured, or removed from `real life' or `natural' social context, as in some forms of experimental method) ... based on methods of analysis and explanation building which involve understandings of complexity, detail and context. Qualitative research aims to produce rounded understandings on the basis of rich, contextual and detailed data. There is more emphasis on `holistic' forms of analysis and explanation in this sense, than on charting surface patterns, trends and correlations. Qualitative research usually does use some form of quantification, but statistical forms of analysis are not seen as central. (Mason, 1996: 4)
These quotations convey something of the nature of qualitative research. They indicate that qualitative research is concerned with the study of people in their natural settings. Qualitative researchers use a variety of tools and techniques in order to develop deep understandings of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world. They seek to make connections between events, perceptions and actions so that their analyses are holistic and contextual. Beyond these broad assumptions, qualitative researchers are very careful to stress the multiplicity and variety of qualitative approaches. For example, Mason (1996) comments that she does not feel comfortable with going beyond the above general features. This is because there are many different answers to key questions of qualitative methodology. Similarly, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) highlight the multiple nature of qualitative approaches. They also illustrate how these have changed over time. Denzin and Lincoln (1994: 1) indicate that `qualitative research operates in a complex historical field that crosscuts five historical moments ... These five moments simultaneously operate in the present'. Denzin and Lincoln describe these five moments as:
•
· The traditional (1900-195): associated with the positivist paradigm where qualitative research aims to reflect the principles of (natural) scientific enquiry;
· The modernist or golden age (1950-1970): where we see the appearance of post-positivist arguments. This is also part of:
· The blurred genres (1970-1986): where a variety of new interpretive, qualitative perspectives come into the foreground: hermeneutics, structuralism, semiotics, phenomenology, cultural studies and feminism. The humanities also became a central resource for critical and interpretive theory. The blurred genres phase gave rise to:
· The crisis of representation (1986-1990): where researchers struggled with how to locate themselves and their subjects in reflexive texts;
· The postmodern or present (1990-): a new sensibility that doubts all previous paradigms.
The key points I would make in respect of this are:
· As Ely et al (1991) point out the field of qualitative research is shot through with a host of labels and a host of proponents of those labels. Different terms are used in roughly synonymous ways (naturalistic inquiry, ethnographic methodologies, qualitative research, interpretive research). This causes confusion and for the new (and also not so new!) student it reinforces a sense that it is they who is at fault as they have failed to get to grips with what exactly qualitative research is. Take heart: Ely et al note that Tesch (1990) compiled a list of 46 terms that social scientists have used to name their versions of qualitative research. No wonder we are all confused!
· As Denzin and Lincoln (1994) point out the nature of the field of qualitative research changes over time. Different perspectives and concerns arise at different points.
· As Denzin and Lincoln (1994) also point out old concerns do not go away. The `five moments' are consecutive but also simultaneous.
· Theories of ontology (what is the form and nature of social reality and, thus, what can be known) and epistemology (what is the nature of the relationship between the knower and would-be knower and what can be known) are central to understanding the forms of knowledge that are produced through qualitative approaches.
I would add the following imperatives, drawn from Mason (1996)
· Qualitative research should be conducted systematically and rigorously. This means that, like all social researchers, qualitative researchers have to use key principles of research design such as linking the research questions to the methodological approaches, considering issues of analysis and data collection as integrated and being clear about the purposes of the research.
· Qualitative research should be conducted in a flexible and contextual way. This means that qualitative researchers make decisions on the basis of their research design and in terms of the changing contexts and situations in which the research takes place. One of the strengths of qualitative approaches is that this flexibility can enhance the research leaded to unanticipated, but significant, issues.
· Qualitative research should be conducted through critical, self-reflexive enquiry. This means that the researcher should be constantly asking questions about her or his role in the research process.
· Qualitative research should produce social explanations to intellectual puzzles. This means being explicit about the logics that have produced these explanations (eg. sampling, selection of events for analysis, researcher's role and so on).
· Qualitative research is not a unified body of philosophy and practice. For example, qualitative research should not be viewed as completely distinctive from, or uncomplementary to, quantitative approaches. The `divide' between quantitative and qualitative research is to some extent false. Qualitative research does quantify (look for phrases such as more than, less than). Quantitative research can collect more qualitative data through open ended questions. All researchers should think carefully about how the choices of method and the potential combinations of approach that are appropriate and possible.
· Qualitative research should be conducted as ethical practice.
Whilst the field of qualitative research is complex and riven with internal debates, nonetheless it is important to have a general sense of the key features of qualitative research. To this end I conclude with the following produced by Ely et al (1991: 4):
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
· Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the setting.
· The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
· Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
· Qualitative researchers attend to the experience as a whole, not as separate variables. The aim of qualitative research is to understand experience as unified.
· Qualitative methods are appropriate to the above statements. There is no one general method.
· For many qualitative researchers, the process entails appraisal about what was studied.
Ely et al add the following from Sherman and Webb (1988) to their definition:
Qualitative implies a direct concern with experience as it is `lived' or `felt' or `undergone' ... Qualitative research, then, has the aim of understanding experience as nearly as possible as its participants feel it or live it.
Further Work
For those of you interested in following up debates and issues within qualitative research in more detail the classic texts are Denzin and Lincoln, 1994 and Denzin and Lincoln, 1998 (a shorter paperback version of the 1994 edition). You might also consult the International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education both for examples of this form of research and for methodological discussions.
IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH A CREDIBLE METHODOLOGY?
WHICH BEST DESCRIBES QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH?
SOFT HARD
SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
SMALL SCALE LARGE SCALE
IDIOGRAPHIC GENERALIZABLE
JOURNALISM SCIENCE
OPINION TRUTH
Ideas that qualitative research is a `second' best approach rest in large part because of the predominance of the `science' model of social research. The central values of such an approach are objectivity and generalizability. Within quantitative approaches, objectivity is maintained in various technical ways. For example, through the distance between the researcher and the researched that is created through the administration of a formal questionnaire; through the possibilities of replication of the research; and through the use of external checks on the methods used. The generalizability of quantitative research is again seen to be possible through technical solutions. The development of sophisticated statistical and sampling techniques are key to this.
In contrast, qualitative approaches emphasise the importance of getting close to the researched. This is because one of the purposes of qualitative approaches is to try to depict the participant's view of social reality. Thus, techniques such as participant observation and unstructured or informal interviews are commonly used. Because of the time and costs involved in such work, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples from large-scale data sets. In addition, because of the central role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not possible to replicate qualitative studies.
Ideas of `second' best also rest on the stereotypes that arise when quantitative and qualitative approaches are compared in this way. In practice, researchers use a variety of methods or techniques of data collection under the umbrella terms of `qualitative' and `quantitative' to enhance the generalizability of the account (Bryman, 1988). In addition, as Hammersley (1989) indicates there is much greater variety of theories of social reality within and between the labels `quantitative' and `qualitative' than we might at first imagine.
In some ways the concerns that arise about a qualitative/quantitative divide can be resolved by giving greater attention to how these approaches can be combined. For Bryman (1998: 126) this would produce `more complete accounts of social reality'. However, it is perhaps important to remember that the values conveyed by descriptions such as soft/hard, idiosyncratic/generalizable, art/science, small scale/large scale have political import. There is a politics in the choice and use of methods, particularly if you hope that your research will impact on policy or create change in some way. Jayaratne (1993) encourages feminists to use both methods because she believes this is more likely to achieve feminist goals. Thus: `My approach to this issue [of choice of method] is political: that is, I believe the appropriate use of both quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences can help the feminist community in achieving its goals more effectively than the use of either qualitative or quantitative methods alone' (p 109, emphasis in original).
In a similar vein, Stanley's (1990) account of a Social Services' referral indicates the politics embedded in the power of `objectivity' in the production of social research knowledge. Stanley delivered a paper that gave an account of an elderly couple's experiences of Social Services' intervention. This account deliberately omitted the fact that the couple were her parents. As she states `I felt that presenting `the case study' as my own still recent experience of caring would disqualify both me and it from `research' and `papers' in the eyes of those present' (p 121).
The key points I would wish to emphasise are:
· There are many stereotypes about qualitative and quantitative approaches.
· Qualitative and quantitative approaches are not as distinctive as the idea of a `divide' suggests.
· These stereotypes lead to comparisons that are political in import.
In addition, it is important to be aware of the various strengths and limitations of any methodological approach. I set out below a summary that I have adapted, and added to, from Burns (2000-13-14) in respect of qualitative research:
Limitations of Qualitative Approaches
· The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards of reliability and validity.
· Contexts, situations, events, conditions and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent nor can generalisations be made to a wider context than the one studied with any confidence.
· The time required for data collection, analysis and interpretation is lengthy.
· The researcher's presence has a profound effect on the subjects of study.
· Issues of anonymity and confidentiality present problems when selecting findings.
· The viewpoints of both researcher and participants have to be identified and elucidated because of issues of bias.
Strengths
· Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider's view of the field. This allows the researcher to find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic enquiries.
· Qualitative descriptions can play the important role of suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects and dynamic processes.
· Because statistics are not used, but rather qualitative research uses a more descriptive, narrative style, this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports in order to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.
· Qualitative research adds flesh and blood to social analysis.