2 weaknesses of qualitative research

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.

Addressing five common weaknesses in qualitative research: Sticking feathers together in the hope of producing a duck

• Philippa Kerr University of Oslo

This paper identifies a number of common conceptual and methodological weaknesses that crop up in qualitative social science research articles and theses. These weaknesses are: (1) conceptual frameworks with no implications; (2) conceptual frameworks which dominate findings; (3) generic technical jargon in methods sections instead of a transparent account of how the research and analytical decisions actually proceeded; (4) superficial and/or anecdotal results sections; and (5) an overuse of social science jargon that sometimes does not mean very much. Suggestions for improving on these weaknesses are made. It is argued that the validity of a piece of qualitative research is established through coherence among all sections of a paper or thesis – concepts, methods, and findings. The metaphor in the paper’s title conveys the point that simply including the right-sounding terminology or sections in a qualitative research article or thesis in the hope that this will, in and of itself, produce good social science is a strategy about as likely to succeed as sticking feathers together in the hope of eventually producing a duck!

Author Biography

Psychology Institute, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2020 Philippa Kerr

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

This journal is an open access journal, and the authors' and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.

Authors may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.

A copy of the authors’ publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:

• Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
• Institutional webpage.
• Authors Institutional Repository.

The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: “This is an electronic version of an article published in PINS, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX–XXX”, DOI.   Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper ( http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/pins ) may be found.

Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University’s’ Institutional Repository SUNScholar .

Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.

Copyright Holder: PINS-Psychology in Society - PINS & Author retain copyright

The following license applies:

Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

We would like to thank all reviewers who contributed to this volume. Ronelle Carolissen also thanks Kopano Ratele for his valuable comments on the chief editorial in this volume.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

ISSN: 1015-6046

eISSN: 2309-8708

Copyright © 2024 PINS-Psychology in Society

Hosted by Stellenbosch University Library and Information Service since 2022.

Creative Commons License -CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Disclaimer:

This journal is hosted by the SU LIS on request of the journal owner/editor. The SU LIS takes no responsibility for the content published within this journal, and disclaims all liability arising out of the use of or inability to use the information contained herein. We assume no responsibility, and shall not be liable for any breaches of agreement with other publishers/hosts.

PINS-Psychology in Society is governed by the principles as set out in the POPIA Act, 2013.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Addressing five common weaknesses in qualitative research: Sticking feathers together in the hope of producing a duck

2020, Psychology in Society

This paper identifies a number of common conceptual and methodological weaknesses that crop up in qualitative social science research articles and theses. These weaknesses are: (1) conceptual frameworks with no implications; (2) conceptual frameworks which dominate findings; (3) generic technical jargon in methods sections instead of a transparent account of how the research and analytical decisions actually proceeded; (4) superficial and/or anecdotal results sections; and (5) an overuse of social science jargon that sometimes does not mean very much. Suggestions for improving on these weaknesses are made. It is argued that the validity of a piece of qualitative research is established through coherence among all sections of a paper or thesis-concepts, methods, and findings. The metaphor in the paper's title conveys the point that simply including the right-sounding terminology or sections in a qualitative research article or thesis in the hope that this will, in and of itself, produce good social science is a strategy about as likely to succeed as sticking feathers together in the hope of eventually producing a duck!

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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  

81k Accesses

28 Citations

71 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

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

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

Limitations and Weaknesses Of Qualitative Research

• Post author: Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka ACMC
• Post published: August 31, 2022
• Post category: Scholarly Articles

Limitations and Weaknesses Of Qualitative Research: To make informed conclusions, research involves obtaining data. The analysis is founded on logical thinking, as accuracy is one of the most important components of research. Research takes several forms and may serve various purposes, depending on the methodology used. There are primarily two main research methodologies: quantitative (focused on measurement and figures) and qualitative (concerned with understanding and words).

Anyone who has looked through a lot of figures, though, is aware of how impersonal it might feel. What do figures tell us about someone’s views, motivations, and thoughts? Even while it’s important to gather statistical data to spot company trends and inefficiencies, statistics don’t always provide the whole picture.

For a long time, qualitative research has been conducted using its guiding principles. Findings from this research approach have frequently been utilized by media and marketing to provide targeted content or provide a personalized brand message.

Data from qualitative research mostly comes from observations made by people. It can provide a deeper, more complete picture of consumer behavior by providing a window into audiences’ brains that quantitative data simply cannot. Customers appreciate hearing from businesses, so talking to them helps marketers better understand who their target market is. It also helps with customer service. This improves a company’s interaction with its customers and prepares the road for consumer endorsements.

As we’ve previously said, qualitative research is done to learn more about the underlying causes and motives in-depth. Qualitative research does have constraints, though. So, in this essay, we’ll talk about the Limitations and weaknesses of qualitative research.

Recommended: Limitations and Weaknesses Of Quantitative Research

Table of Contents

What is qualitative research?

A market research technique called qualitative research concentrates on gathering information through conversational and open-ended dialogue. This approach emphasizes “ why ” rather than “ what ” others think of you. Marketers like penetrating their target audience’s brains. But to achieve that, they must conduct a qualitative study. Qualitative observations, focus groups, and in-person interviews may all give you insightful information about your market, your goods, and the attitudes and motives of your consumers.

Consider that you operate a general audience web store. Demographic investigation reveals that the majority of your consumers are men. Naturally, you’ll be curious to know why ladies aren’t making purchases from you. And you’ll be able to discover it through qualitative research.

Also see: Most Powerful and Strongest Families In the world

Limitations and Weaknesses of Qualitative Research Methods

1. The data quality is very debatable: This is where the subjective aspect of data collection in qualitative research may potentially be a drawback. Another researcher may view data that one believes is relevant and necessary to collect as meaningless and choose not to pursue it.

Individual viewpoints and instinctive choices might result in very comprehensive data. Because of its dependence on researcher subjectivism, it can also result in data that is oversimplified or even erroneous.

2. It is based on the researcher’s experience: Only the experience of the researchers participating in the process will determine the quality of the data gathered through qualitative research. A researcher who is knowledgeable about the sector must gather data that is particular to that business.

For the data to be accurate, researchers must also be skilled at conducting effective interviews, brave enough to follow up with participants, and able to establish rapport with them on a professional level.

Also see: Advantages and Disadvantages of Being an Entrepreneur

3. It is more challenging to evaluate and prove data rigidity: It is more challenging to demonstrate rigidity in collective data since individual viewpoints frequently serve as the basis of data collected in qualitative research. The human mind frequently recalls information in the way that it desires. Because of this, even if the events themselves may have been rather upsetting at the time, recollections are frequently viewed with nostalgia.

Researchers find it challenging to show the veracity of their findings because of our fundamental tendency to see the bright side of things.

4. It could take a lot of time: Data collection takes longer since researchers go off in many different directions. Additionally, sorting through all of that additional data takes time. The value of every data point is never certain since it is appraised subjectively.

In contrast to data gathered via qualitative research, data gathered through other research forms are subject to strict criteria and expectations that enable it to be reviewed and used more quickly.

Also see: How to Become A Better Version of Yourself Everyday

5. Data with uncertain values are produced: Due to the diversity of their viewpoints, even researchers may disagree on the importance of the data being gathered. The qualitative research method depends on the researcher engaged to determine what is included and what is eliminated. Due to its very subjective nature, this data collecting procedure. It is always feasible to offer detailed data, but only in cases when the researcher can put their prejudice and viewpoint aside and present the material in its unprocessed state.

6. It is not statistically significant: Its absence of statistical representation is the one drawback of qualitative research that is always present. The replies provided are not quantified because it is a perspective-based research approach only.

Although it is possible to compare results and this may result in the necessary duplication. Most situations that call for statistical representation and are outside the scope of qualitative research need quantitative data.

Also see: Differences Between Praise And Worship

7. Repeated qualitative research periods may be necessary for difficult conclusions: For brands and enterprises that must make a difficult or possibly divisive decision, the smaller sample sizes of qualitative research may be both an advantage and a drawback.

Even though the people in the sample share a lot of characteristics, a small sample is not always indicative of wider general demography. This indicates that a follow-up with a bigger quantitative sample may be required to track data points with more precision and make a better overall judgment.

8. Qualitative research-generated data isn’t often taken seriously: Findings from qualitative research are not always embraced by the scientific community because of the subjective character of the data that is gathered. To start the process of community acceptability, it is frequently required to conduct a second independent qualitative research project that can yield comparable findings.

Also see: Differences Between Objective And Subjective

9. In the course of qualitative study, hidden facts may vanish: It is entrusted to the researcher with a great deal of faith that they will obtain and then compile the hidden data that a supplier makes available. The ability of the researcher to make all the connections is essential to the research’s success.

If the researcher is successful in doing this, the data will be significant and will aid brands in advancing their goals. Otherwise, until the initial findings are acquired, there is no ability to change the course of action. The next step is to start a fresh qualitative procedure.

10. Researcher influence may have a detrimental impact on the data gathered: Qualitative research relies heavily on the abilities and observation of the researcher to provide high-quality data. A researcher’s point of view will be integrated with the data gathered if they have a biased viewpoint, which will affect the results.

Controls must be in place to assist in removing the possibility of bias so that the data gathered may be examined honestly. Otherwise, a researcher might assert anything and then utilize their bias in qualitative research to support their claim.

Also see: Advantages And Disadvantages of Cooperative Society

Any qualitative research project, in practice, has advantages and disadvantages. Thus, being aware of the constraints is essential to successful and relevant data collection. Qualitative research studies have the drawbacks of being more difficult to comprehend and are less likely to generalize to the entire community. It is essential to have a better understanding of how certain individuals and even groups think. But someone will always doubt the data’s dependability and truthfulness because of how subjective it is.

Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka, ACMC, is a lawyer and a certified mediator/conciliator in Nigeria. He is also a developer with knowledge in various programming languages. Samuel is determined to leverage his skills in technology, SEO, and legal practice to revolutionize the legal profession worldwide by creating web and mobile applications that simplify legal research. Sam is also passionate about educating and providing valuable information to people.

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative?

The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze.

Quantitative research collects numerical data and analyzes it using statistical methods. The aim is to produce objective, empirical data that can be measured and expressed in numerical terms. Quantitative research is often used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and make predictions.

Qualitative research , on the other hand, collects non-numerical data such as words, images, and sounds. The focus is on exploring subjective experiences, opinions, and attitudes, often through observation and interviews.

Qualitative research aims to produce rich and detailed descriptions of the phenomenon being studied, and to uncover new insights and meanings.

Quantitative data is information about quantities, and therefore numbers, and qualitative data is descriptive, and regards phenomenon which can be observed but not measured, such as language.

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality.

Qualitative data is non-numerical data, such as text, video, photographs, or audio recordings. This type of data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis.

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. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 2)

Interest in qualitative data came about as the result of the dissatisfaction of some psychologists (e.g., Carl Rogers) with the scientific study of psychologists such as behaviorists (e.g., Skinner ).

Since psychologists study people, the traditional approach to science is not seen as an appropriate way of carrying out research since it fails to capture the totality of human experience and the essence of being human.  Exploring participants’ experiences is known as a phenomenological approach (re: Humanism ).

Qualitative research is primarily concerned with meaning, subjectivity, and lived experience. The goal is to understand the quality and texture of people’s experiences, how they make sense of them, and the implications for their lives.

Qualitative research aims to understand the social reality of individuals, groups, and cultures as nearly as possible as participants feel or live it. Thus, people and groups are studied in their natural setting.

Some examples of qualitative research questions are provided, such as what an experience feels like, how people talk about something, how they make sense of an experience, and how events unfold for people.

Research following a qualitative approach is exploratory and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ a particular phenomenon, or behavior, operates as it does in a particular context. It can be used to generate hypotheses and theories from the data.

Qualitative Methods

There are different types of qualitative research methods, including diary accounts, in-depth interviews , documents, focus groups , case study research , and ethnography.

The results of qualitative methods provide a deep understanding of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world.

The researcher has several methods for collecting empirical materials, ranging from the interview to direct observation, to the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the use of visual materials or personal experience. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 14)

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

Interview transcripts : Verbatim records of what participants said during an interview or focus group. They allow researchers to identify common themes and patterns, and draw conclusions based on the data. Interview transcripts can also be useful in providing direct quotes and examples to support research findings.

Observations : The researcher typically takes detailed notes on what they observe, including any contextual information, nonverbal cues, or other relevant details. The resulting observational data can be analyzed to gain insights into social phenomena, such as human behavior, social interactions, and cultural practices.

Unstructured interviews : generate qualitative data through the use of open questions.  This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words.  This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.

Diaries or journals : Written accounts of personal experiences or reflections.

Notice that qualitative data could be much more than just words or text. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, and so on, can be considered qualitative data. Visual data can be used to understand behaviors, environments, and social interactions.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative research is endlessly creative and interpretive. The researcher does not just leave the field with mountains of empirical data and then easily write up his or her findings.

Qualitative interpretations are constructed, and various techniques can be used to make sense of the data, such as content analysis, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), or discourse analysis.

For example, thematic analysis is a qualitative approach that involves identifying implicit or explicit ideas within the data. Themes will often emerge once the data has been coded.

Key Features

• Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the field, in natural surroundings. 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.
• The qualitative researcher is an integral part of the data; without the active participation of the researcher, no data exists.
• The study’s design evolves during the research and can be adjusted or changed as it progresses. For the qualitative researcher, there is no single reality. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.
• The theory is data-driven and emerges as part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

• Because of the time and costs involved, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples from large-scale data sets.
• 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. For example, because of the central role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not possible to replicate qualitative studies.
• Also, contexts, situations, events, conditions, and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent, nor can generalizations be made to a wider context than the one studied with confidence.
• The time required for data collection, analysis, and interpretation is lengthy. Analysis of qualitative data is difficult, and expert knowledge of an area is necessary to interpret qualitative data. Great care must be taken when doing so, for example, looking for mental illness symptoms.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

• 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 inquiries.
• Qualitative descriptions can be important in suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects, and dynamic processes.
• Qualitative analysis allows for ambiguities/contradictions in the data, which reflect social reality (Denscombe, 2010).
• Qualitative research uses a descriptive, narrative style; this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research involves the process of objectively collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest.

The goals of quantitative research are to test causal relationships between variables , make predictions, and generalize results to wider populations.

Quantitative researchers aim to establish general laws of behavior and phenomenon across different settings/contexts. Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Quantitative Methods

Experiments typically yield quantitative data, as they are concerned with measuring things.  However, other research methods, such as controlled observations and questionnaires , can produce both quantitative information.

For example, a rating scale or closed questions on a questionnaire would generate quantitative data as these produce either numerical data or data that can be put into categories (e.g., “yes,” “no” answers).

Experimental methods limit how research participants react to and express appropriate social behavior.

Findings are, therefore, likely to be context-bound and simply a reflection of the assumptions that the researcher brings to the investigation.

There are numerous examples of quantitative data in psychological research, including mental health. Here are a few examples:

Another example is the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR), a self-report questionnaire widely used to assess adult attachment styles .

The ECR provides quantitative data that can be used to assess attachment styles and predict relationship outcomes.

Neuroimaging data : Neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI and fMRI, provide quantitative data on brain structure and function.

This data can be analyzed to identify brain regions involved in specific mental processes or disorders.

For example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) is a clinician-administered questionnaire widely used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms in individuals.

The BDI consists of 21 questions, each scored on a scale of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. 

Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistics help us turn quantitative data into useful information to help with decision-making. We can use statistics to summarize our data, describing patterns, relationships, and connections. Statistics can be descriptive or inferential.

Descriptive statistics help us to summarize our data. In contrast, inferential statistics are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups of data (such as intervention and control groups in a randomized control study).

• Quantitative researchers try to control extraneous variables by conducting their studies in the lab.
• The research aims for objectivity (i.e., without bias) and is separated from the data.
• The design of the study is determined before it begins.
• For the quantitative researcher, the reality is objective, exists separately from the researcher, and can be seen by anyone.
• Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Limitations of Quantitative Research

• Context: Quantitative experiments do not take place in natural settings. In addition, they do not allow participants to explain their choices or the meaning of the questions they may have for those participants (Carr, 1994).
• Researcher expertise: Poor knowledge of the application of statistical analysis may negatively affect analysis and subsequent interpretation (Black, 1999).
• Variability of data quantity: Large sample sizes are needed for more accurate analysis. Small-scale quantitative studies may be less reliable because of the low quantity of data (Denscombe, 2010). This also affects the ability to generalize study findings to wider populations.
• Confirmation bias: The researcher might miss observing phenomena because of focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather than on the theory of hypothesis generation.

Advantages of Quantitative Research

• Scientific objectivity: Quantitative data can be interpreted with statistical analysis, and since statistics are based on the principles of mathematics, the quantitative approach is viewed as scientifically objective and rational (Carr, 1994; Denscombe, 2010).
• Useful for testing and validating already constructed theories.
• Rapid analysis: Sophisticated software removes much of the need for prolonged data analysis, especially with large volumes of data involved (Antonius, 2003).
• Replication: Quantitative data is based on measured values and can be checked by others because numerical data is less open to ambiguities of interpretation.
• Hypotheses can also be tested because of statistical analysis (Antonius, 2003).

Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS . Sage.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics . Sage.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3, 77–101.

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research : what method for nursing? Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4) , 716-721.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research. McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln. Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4) , 364.

Minichiello, V. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Longman Cheshire.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage

Further Information

• Designing qualitative research
• Methods of data collection and analysis
• Introduction to quantitative and qualitative research
• Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
• Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
• Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach
• Using the framework method for the analysis of
• Qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
• Content Analysis
• Grounded Theory
• Thematic Analysis

The UK Faculty of Public Health has recently taken ownership of the Health Knowledge resource. This new, advert-free website is still under development and there may be some issues accessing content. Additionally, the content has not been audited or verified by the Faculty of Public Health as part of an ongoing quality assurance process and as such certain material included maybe out of date. If you have any concerns regarding content you should seek to independently verify this.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths of qualitative research.

• Qualitative methods tend to collect very rich data in an efficient manner: rather than being limited to the responders to a set of pre-defined questions, it is possible to explore interesting concepts that can lead to novel theory by analysing the entirety of a participant’s interview/story/interaction.
• Qualitative methods can lead to the generation of new theory from unexpected findings that go against “conventional” public health understanding
• When combined with quantitative methods, qualitative research can provide a much more complete picture. For example, a well-designed process evaluation of a trial may provide important insights into participant attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts about the intervention and its acceptability, which may not be evident from the quantitative outcome evaluation.

Weaknesses of qualitative research

• It is important that qualitative researchers adhere to robust methodology in order to ensure high quality research. Poor quality qualitative work can lead to misleading findings.
• Qualitative research alone is often insufficient to make population-level summaries. The research is not designed for this purpose, as the aim is not to generate summaries generalisable to the wider population.
• Policy makers may not understand or value the interpretive position and therefore may not recognize the importance of qualitative research.
• Qualitative research can be time and labour-intensive. Conducting multiple interviews and focus groups can be logistically difficult to arrange and time consuming. Furthermore, tranalysanscription and analysis of the data (comparing, coding, and inducting) requires intense concentration and full immersion in the data – a process that can be far more time-consuming than a descriptive statistical analysis.

© I Crinson & M Leontowitsch 2006, G Morgan 2016

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

34 9.2 Qualitative interviews

Learning objectives.

• Define interviews from the social scientific perspective
• Identify when it is appropriate to employ interviews as a data-collection strategy
• Identify the primary aim of in-depth interviews
• Describe what makes qualitative interview techniques unique
• Define the term interview guide and describe how to construct an interview guide
• Outline the guidelines for constructing good qualitative interview questions
• Describe how writing field notes and journaling function in qualitative research
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of interviews

Knowing how to create and conduct a good interview is an essential skill. Interviews are used by market researchers to learn how to sell their products, and journalists use interviews to get information from a whole host of people from VIPs to random people on the street. Police use interviews to investigate crimes.

In social science,  interviews are a method of data collection that involves two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers. The questions are designed by the researcher to elicit information from interview participants on a specific topic or set of topics. These topics are informed by the research questions. Typically, interviews involve an in-person meeting between two people—an interviewer and an interviewee — but interviews need not be limited to two people, nor must they occur in-person.

The question of when to conduct an interview might be on your mind. Interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. They also have an advantage over surveys—they can change as you learn more information. In a survey, you cannot change what questions you ask if a participant’s response sparks some follow-up question in your mind. All participants must get the same questions. The questions you decided to put on your survey during the design stage determine what data you get. In an interview, however, you can follow up on new and unexpected topics that emerge during the conversation. Trusting in emergence and learning from participants are hallmarks of qualitative research. In this way, interviews are a useful method to use when you want to know the story behind the responses you might receive in a written survey.

Interviews are also useful when the topic you are studying is rather complex, requires lengthy explanation, or needs a dialogue between two people to thoroughly investigate. Also, if people will describe the process by which a phenomenon occurs, like how a person makes a decision, then interviews may be the best method for you. For example, you could use interviews to gather data about how people reach the decision not to have children and how others in their lives have responded to that decision. To understand these “how’s” you would need to have some back-and-forth dialogue with respondents. When they begin to tell you their story, inevitably new questions that hadn’t occurred to you from prior interviews would come up because each person’s story is unique. Also, because the process of choosing not to have children is complex for many people, describing that process by responding to closed-ended questions on a survey wouldn’t work particularly well.

Interview research is especially useful when:

• You wish to gather very detailed information
• You anticipate wanting to ask respondents follow-up questions based on their responses
• You plan to ask questions that require lengthy explanation
• You are studying a complex or potentially confusing topic to respondents
• You are studying processes, such as how people make decisions

Qualitative interviews are sometimes called intensive or in-depth interviews. These interviews are semi-structured ; the researcher has a particular topic about which she would like to hear from the respondent, but questions are open-ended and may not be asked in exactly the same way or in exactly the same order to each and every respondent. For in-depth interviews , the primary aim is to hear from respondents about what they think is important about the topic at hand and to hear it in their own words. In this section, we’ll take a look at how to conduct qualitative interviews, analyze interview data, and identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of this method.

Constructing an interview guide

Qualitative interviews might feel more like a conversation than an interview to respondents, but the researcher is in fact usually guiding the conversation with the goal in mind of gathering specific information from a respondent. Qualitative interviews use open-ended questions, which are questions that a researcher poses but does not provide answer options for. Open-ended questions are more demanding of participants than closed-ended questions because they require participants to come up with their own words, phrases, or sentences to respond.

In a qualitative interview, the researcher usually develops an interview guide in advance to refer to during the interview (or memorizes in advance of the interview). An interview guide is a list of questions or topics that the interviewer hopes to cover during the course of an interview. It is called a guide because it is simply that—it is used to guide the interviewer, but it is not set in stone. Think of an interview guide like an agenda for the day or a to-do list—both probably contain all the items you hope to check off or accomplish, though it probably won’t be the end of the world if you don’t accomplish everything on the list or if you don’t accomplish it in the exact order that you have it written down. Perhaps new events will come up that cause you to rearrange your schedule just a bit, or perhaps you simply won’t get to everything on the list.

Interview guides should outline issues that a researcher feels are likely to be important. Because participants are asked to provide answers in their own words and to raise points they believe are important, each interview is likely to flow a little differently. While the opening question in an in-depth interview may be the same across all interviews, from that point on, what the participant says will shape how the interview proceeds. Sometimes participants answer a question on the interview guide before it is asked. When the interviewer comes to that question later on in the interview, it’s a good idea to acknowledge that they already addressed part of this question and ask them if they have anything to add to their response.  All of this uncertainty can make in-depth interviewing exciting and rather challenging. It takes a skilled interviewer to be able to ask questions; listen to respondents; and pick up on cues about when to follow up, when to move on, and when to simply let the participant speak without guidance or interruption.

As we’ve discussed, interview guides can list topics or questions. The specific format of an interview guide might depend on your style, experience, and comfort level as an interviewer or with your topic. Figure 9.1 provides an example of an interview guide for a study of how young people experience workplace sexual harassment. The guide is topic-based, rather than a list of specific questions. The ordering of the topics is important, though how each comes up during the interview may vary.

For interview guides that use questions, there can also be specific words or phrases for follow-up in case the participant does not mention those topics in their responses. These probes , as well as the questions are written out in the interview guide, but may not always be used. Figure 9.2 provides an example of an interview guide that uses questions rather than topics.

As you might have guessed, interview guides do not appear out of thin air. They are the result of thoughtful and careful work on the part of a researcher. As you can see in both of the preceding guides, the topics and questions have been organized thematically and in the order in which they are likely to proceed (though keep in mind that the flow of a qualitative interview is in part determined by what a respondent has to say). Sometimes qualitative interviewers may create two versions of the interview guide: one version contains a very brief outline of the interview, perhaps with just topic headings, and another version contains detailed questions underneath each topic heading. In this case, the researcher might use the very detailed guide to prepare and practice in advance of actually conducting interviews and then just bring the brief outline to the interview. Bringing an outline, as opposed to a very long list of detailed questions, to an interview encourages the researcher to actually listen to what a participant is saying. An overly detailed interview guide can be difficult to navigate during an interview and could give respondents the mis-impression the interviewer is more interested in the questions than in the participant’s answers.

Constructing an interview guide often begins with brainstorming. There are no rules at the brainstorming stage—simply list all the topics and questions that come to mind when you think about your research question. Once you’ve got a pretty good list, you can begin to pare it down by cutting questions and topics that seem redundant and group similar questions and topics together. If you haven’t done so yet, you may also want to come up with question and topic headings for your grouped categories. You should also consult the scholarly literature to find out what kinds of questions other interviewers have asked in studies of similar topics and what theory indicates might be important. As with quantitative survey research, it is best not to place very sensitive or potentially controversial questions at the very beginning of your qualitative interview guide. You need to give participants the opportunity to warm up to the interview and to feel comfortable talking with you. Finally, get some feedback on your interview guide. Ask your friends, other researchers, and your professors for some guidance and suggestions once you’ve come up with what you think is a strong guide. Chances are they’ll catch a few things you hadn’t noticed. Once you begin your interviews, your participants may also suggest revisions or improvements.

In terms of the specific questions you include in your guide, there are a few guidelines worth noting. First, avoid questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no. Try to rephrase your questions in a way that invites longer responses from your interviewees. If you choose to include yes or no questions, be sure to include follow-up questions. Remember, one of the benefits of qualitative interviews is that you can ask participants for more information—be sure to do so. While it is a good idea to ask follow-up questions, try to avoid asking “why” as your follow-up question, as this particular question can come off as confrontational, even if that is not your intent. Often people won’t know how to respond to “why,” perhaps because they don’t even know why themselves. Instead of asking “why,” you say something like, “Could you tell me a little more about that?” This allows participants to explain themselves further without feeling that they’re being doubted or questioned in a hostile way.

Also, try to avoid phrasing your questions in a leading way. For example, rather than asking, “Don’t you think most people who don’t want to have children are selfish?” you could ask, “What comes to mind for you when you hear someone doesn’t want to have children?” Finally, remember to keep most, if not all, of your questions open-ended. The key to a successful qualitative interview is giving participants the opportunity to share information in their own words and in their own way. Documenting the decisions made along the way regarding which questions are used, thrown out, or revised can help a researcher remember the thought process behind the interview guide when she is analyzing the data. Additionally, it promotes the rigor of the qualitative project as a whole, ensuring the researcher is proceeding in a reflective and deliberate manner that can be checked by others reviewing her study.

Recording qualitative data

Even after the interview guide is constructed, the interviewer is not yet ready to begin conducting interviews. The researcher has to decide how to collect and maintain the information that is provided by participants. Researchers keep field notes or written recordings produced by the researcher during the data collection process.  Field notes can be taken before, during, or after interviews. Field notes help researchers document what they observe, and in so doing, they form the first step of data analysis. Field notes may contain many things—observations of body language or environment, reflections on whether interview questions are working well, and connections between ideas that participants share.

Unfortunately, even the most diligent researcher cannot write down everything that is seen or heard during an interview. In particular, it is difficult for a researcher to be truly present and observant if she is also writing down everything the participant is saying. For this reason, it is quite common for interviewers to create audio recordings of the interviews they conduct. Recording interviews allows the researcher to focus on the interaction with the interview participant.

Of course, not all participants will feel comfortable being recorded and sometimes even the interviewer may feel that the subject is so sensitive that recording would be inappropriate. If this is the case, it is up to the researcher to balance excellent note-taking with exceptional question-asking and even better listening.

Whether you will be recording your interviews or not (and especially if not), practicing the interview in advance is crucial. Ideally, you’ll find a friend or two willing to participate in a couple of trial runs with you. Even better, find a friend or two who are similar in at least some ways to your sample. They can give you the best feedback on your questions and your interview demeanor.

Another issue interviewers face is documenting the decisions made during the data collection process. Qualitative research is open to new ideas that emerge through the data collection process. For example, a participant might suggest a new concept you hadn’t thought of before or define a concept in a new way. This may lead you to create new questions or ask questions in a different way to future participants. These processes should be documented in a process called journaling or memoing. Journal entries are notes to yourself about reflections or methodological decisions that emerge during the data collection process. Documenting these are important, as you’d be surprised how quickly you can forget what happened. Journaling makes sure that when it comes time to analyze your data, you remember how, when, and why certain changes were made. The discipline of journaling in qualitative research helps to ensure the rigor of the research process—that is its trustworthiness and authenticity which we will discuss later in this chapter.

Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative interviews

As we’ve mentioned in this section, qualitative interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. Any topic can be explored in much more depth with interviews than with almost any other method. Not only are participants given the opportunity to elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods such as survey research, but they also are able share information with researchers in their own words and from their own perspectives. Whereas, quantitative research asks participants to fit their perspectives into the limited response options provided by the researcher. And because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are especially useful when a researcher’s aim is to study social processes or the “how” of various phenomena. Yet another, and sometimes overlooked, benefit of in-person qualitative interviews is that researchers can make observations beyond those that a respondent is orally reporting. A respondent’s body language, and even their choice of time and location for the interview, might provide a researcher with useful data.

Of course, all these benefits come with some drawbacks. As with quantitative survey research, qualitative interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall specific details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviors. Further, as you may have already guessed, qualitative interviewing is time-intensive and can be quite expensive. Creating an interview guide, identifying a sample, and conducting interviews are just the beginning. Writing out what was said in interviews and analyzing the qualitative interview data are time consuming processes. Keep in mind you are also asking for more of participants’ time than if you’d simply mailed them a questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. Conducting qualitative interviews is not only labor-intensive but can also be emotionally taxing. Seeing and hearing the impact that social problems have on respondents is difficult. Researchers embarking on a qualitative interview project should keep in mind their own abilities to receive stories that may be difficult to hear.

Key Takeaways

• Understanding how to design and conduct interview research is a useful skill to have.
• In a social scientific interview, two or more people exchange information through a series of questions and answers.
• Interview research is often used when detailed information is required and when a researcher wishes to examine processes.
• In-depth interviews are semi-structured interviews where the researcher has topics and questions in mind to ask, but questions are open-ended and flow according to how the participant responds to each.
• Interview guides can vary in format but should contain some outline of the topics you hope to cover during the course of an interview.
• Qualitative interviews allow respondents to share information in their own words and are useful for gathering detailed information and understanding social processes.
• Field notes and journaling are ways to document thoughts and decisions about the research process
• Drawbacks of qualitative interviews include reliance on respondents’ accuracy and their intensity in terms of time, expense, and possible emotional strain.
• Field notes- written notes produced by the researcher during the data collection process
• In-depth interviews- interviews in which researchers hear from respondents about what they think is important about the topic at hand in the respondent’s own words
• Interviews- a method of data collection that involves two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers
• Interview guide- a list of questions or topics that the interviewer hopes to cover during the course of an interview
• Journaling- making notes of emerging issues and changes during the research process
• Semi-structured interviews- questions are open ended and may not be asked in exactly the same way or in exactly the same order to each and every respondent

Image attributions

interview restaurant a pair by alda2 CC-0

questions by geralt CC-0

Figure 9.1 is copied from Blackstone, A. (2012) Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-sociological-inquiry-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/ Shared under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 License

writing by StockSnap CC-0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

There are many types of research taking place, which results in the evolution of something new and unique. Traditional Marketing Research has two options to conduct its research: Quantitative and Qualitative methods .  

What is Quantitative Research

Quantitative research is defined as an organized analysis of occurrences by collecting measurable data and applying statistical, mathematical, and computational methodologies. It is the process of gathering information from existing and potential customers by sampling methods and the distribution of online surveys, questionnaires, online polls, and so on. The results of these polls or surveys are represented numerically. 

Quantitative research is dependent on the creation of a Hypothesis followed by an accurate analysis of the statistics in order to understand and explain the research findings. It focuses more on the quantity of things and their statistical patterns. Using the number comes to analysis so as to come to a conclusion.

After gaining a thorough understanding of these figures, it is possible to forecast the future of a product or service and make modifications as needed.

Strengths of Quantitative Research

The quantitative research method has proven to be beneficial in the following ways

• It provides an allowance for the formulation of statistically sound
• Quantitative data provides a macro view with all the required details and comparatively larger samples.
• Larger sample sizes enable the conclusion to be generalized.
• Evaluation of the multiple data sets can be done at once and that too at a faster pace and accurately.
• This method is called to be appropriate when there is a need for systematic and standardized comparisons.
• The manual implementations of ideas can be automated completely which can save time.

Weaknesses of Quantitative Data

Here are some of the weaknesses of quantitative research:

• The quantitative method reveals what and to what extent but often fails to answer more on why and how.
• This type of research requires the model performance to be monitored on a constant basis in order to ensure its compliance with the original hypotheses.
• The impression of homogeneity in a sample may turn out to be fake in this method.
• This method involves a limited number of Quants supply and also involves complex disciplines which are hard to master.

Types of Quantitative Research Methods

When it comes to gathering information, quantitative research comes in handy. It provides you with a wide range of options. Each has its own set of pros and cons. Hence, it is advised to use a combination of them to get the best outcomes. Here are the four commonly used quantitative research methods that you can consider employing:

Conducting surveys is one of the most common quantitative research methods that most marketers utilize. In this method, marketers distribute surveys to their target audience in order to gather information, followed by statistical analysis of the results in order to develop conclusions and insights. 

In addition to being a short turnaround method, it is an excellent approach to better understand your target customers or explore a new market. Here are the best ways to conduct surveys: 

• a. Survey via Email: The use of email to communicate with a large number of individuals is quick and can be more cost-effective than the other methods outlined in this section.
• b. Phone Campaign : Not everyone has access to the internet, so if you want to reach a specific audience that may find it difficult to interact in this manner (for example, older consumers), a telephone campaign may be a more effective strategy. However, phone campaigns can be expensive endeavours as you’ll have to employ teams for calling your consumers and taking their answers. Also, there will be increased telephone bills as well as a result.
• c. Postal Surveys : like the phone, it allows you to contact a large portion of the population, but it is expensive and takes a long time to complete the task. As businesses strive to discover and respond to changes in consumer behaviour as quickly as possible, postal surveys have grown increasingly out of date.
• d. Distribution through social media: Social media handles are another wonderful ways to conduct surveys. By distributing the survey through social media, you can collect a greater number of replies from those who are familiar with the brand.

Related: Quantitative And Qualitative Research Tools And Techniques

• e. QR codes: You can use QR codes by printing or publishing them in magazines, on signs, business cards, or on almost any other object or medium you like.
• f. SMS-based survey: SMS-based surveys can help you collect a large number of responses quickly and efficiently in a short amount of time.
• g. In-person quantitative research : doing quantitative research in person makes sense in particular situations. However, this is not the solution for all types of research. In-person quantitative research works well when you need to capture quantifiable data about a customer’s experience in the present, or intercepts, where you need customers to physically engage with a product in order to provide relevant feedback. However, know that these kinds of research are costly affairs, as well as time-consuming and challenging to organize and carry out logistically.

In this approach, you’ll be able to collect information that may be categorized and analyzed in a quantitative, numerical manner.

2. Correlation Research

Correlation research examines the effects of one entity on another and the changes that result. This quantitative research method requires a minimum of two different groups or entities to establish the relationship.

This quantitative research strategy uses mathematical analysis to correlate two or more variables. The original patterns, correlations, and trends between variables are finished. Impact of one variable on the other and how it affects the interaction between them are observed. To achieve desired findings, researchers often modify one of the variables.

It is best not to draw conclusions just from correlational data. Because two variables that are in sync are not necessarily connected.

3. Causal-Comparative Research

This strategy relies heavily on comparison. This quantitative research method is used to determine the cause-effect relationship between two or more variables, where one variable is dependent on the other. 

In this step, the independent variable is established but not changed. The variables or groupings must be formed as in nature. Because dependent and independent variables always exist in a group, it is prudent to draw conclusions carefully considering all elements.

Causal-comparative research examines how distinct variables or groups change as a result of the same changes. This study is undertaken regardless of the relationship between two or more variables. Statistical analysis is used to clearly present the results of quantitative research.

4. Experimental Research

True experimentation is based on a theory. Experimental research, as the name implies, tests one or more hypotheses. This theory is unproven and only a supposition. In experimental research, the statement is tested to see if it is true. Experiment research might have numerous theories. One can verify or deny a theory.

RESULT ANALYSIS

Once you’ve obtained your data, the next step is to categorize and evaluate the information. There are numerous approaches that can be used to do this. However, 

Cross-tabulation is a powerful technique that categorizes your results depending on demographic subgroups, which is very useful. 

For example, how many of the persons who answered ‘yes’ to a question were adults and how many were youngsters can be calculated.

Take the time to clean the data (for example, deleting respondents who rushed through the survey and repeatedly selected the same answer) to ensure that you can draw confident inferences from it. All of this can be handled by a competent group of professionals.

Pointers to Keep in Mind While Constructing Surveys

• Make it crystal clear what you want to accomplish with your survey. 
• This will assist you in determining your target audience and in developing relevant queries for them.
• Make use of easy and simple language that people from a variety of backgrounds may easily comprehend.
• Make sure your questions and answers are concise and easy to understand.
• Use acronyms only if you are confident that your audience will understand what you are trying to say.
• Make sure not to over-survey your participants. Instead, make an effort to obtain as much information as possible in the first instance—excessive surveying results in survey weariness, which results in a poor response rate.
• Make certain that all critical questions have been marked as obligatory.
• Avoid using double negatives in your questions. Participants may become confused if you utilize double negatives in your questions, and they may misinterpret your queries.
• Providing a ‘not applicable’ response option will assist you in collecting correct information.
• Instead of a four-point scale, a five-point scale should be used because the latter does not provide a neutral answer choice.
• Include closed-ended questions rather than open-ended questions. An ideal survey should primarily include closed-ended questions, with a few open-ended questions thrown in for good measure.
• Example: instead of asking, “Can you tell us about your experience with our food delivery services?” You should ask, “How happy are you with our food delivery services?” 
• Your options may include the following: “Very Happy / Satisfied / Don’t know / Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied” 

Why is quantitative research important to business?

Quantitative research is an extremely useful tool for anyone who wants to have a better understanding of their market and clients. The ability to acquire trustworthy, objective insights from data and clearly identify trends and patterns is enabled by this technology.

Quantitative research is a critical component of market research; it depends on hard facts and numerical data to create an objective picture of people’s ideas as possible to obtain an understanding of their preferences. There are numerous reasons why quantitative research is essential in any market research plan , including the following:

• It makes it possible to conduct research on a large scale.
• It assists organizations in determining the scale of a new opportunity.
• It allows marketers to quickly and simply compare distinct groups (e.g., by age, gender, or market) in order to discover the similarities and variations between them.
• It can be useful when trying to simplify a complicated problem or topic into a small number of variables.

Importance of quantitative research in marketing

The quantitative study is mainly concerned with numbers. It makes use of mathematical analysis and data to throw light on vital facts pertaining to your company and the market in general. This type of information, obtained using techniques such as multiple-choice questionnaires or surveys, can be used to generate buzz in your organization and its products and services.

Related: How to Use Customer Data Analytics for Higher ROI

What is Qualitative Research

The methodologies utilized in qualitative research may appear ineffectual to individuals who are more experienced with quantitative research approaches at first glance. 

It is more focused on exploring the issues, understanding the actual problem, and enabling oneself to answer all the questions. The qualitative Research Method is more dependent on deriving the value of variables in their natural setting. 

In a nutshell, qualitative research differs from quantitative research in that it emphasizes words rather than statistics and depth rather than breadth. 

Its approaches are exploratory in nature, intending to uncover the opinions, thoughts, and feelings of those who participate.  It is most frequently used to inform the development of new concepts, theories, and products. Qualitative research, which was originally designed for use in the social sciences, is now commonly utilized to inform market research by acquiring unique consumer insight from a large amount of available data.

Strengths of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research can be beneficial in the following ways

• All the problems and the topics covered in this research are in detail.
• This method majorly focuses on small groups which ultimately do not require more expenses when compared to quantitative research.
• With the emergence of new developed information and findings, the revision, direction and framework of the data can be done easily and quickly.
• The data is collected from a small group which bounds it to be universal for a large population.
• The data with this method is collected based on genuine efforts and gives a clear vision of what can be expected.

Weaknesses of Qualitative Research

• As the data is collected for a small group, which assumptions cannot be made beyond the small group of people.
• It becomes difficult to demonstrate, maintain and assess the rigidity of the data.
• The collection of statistical data is not easy and cannot be done solely by using this method.
• As the data is in big quantity, analysis and interpretation of the data take much time.
• The responses of the subjects might be affected as the researchers are bound to be present during the process of data gathering.

Types of Qualitative Research Method

There are 8 types of Qualitative Methods; take a look…

1. One-on-one Interview

In-depth interviews are a typical qualitative research method. It involves a one-on-one interview with one respondent. This is essentially a conversational strategy that allows for detailed responses.

This strategy allows for exact data collection regarding people’s beliefs and motivations. Asking the appropriate questions can help a researcher acquire valuable data. If the researchers require further information, they should ask follow-up questions.

One-on-one interviews can be conducted in person or over the phone and can last from 30 minutes to two hours. Face-to-face interviews allow for better reading of respondents’ body language and matching of responses.

2. Focus Groups

A focus group is yet another popular qualitative data collection strategy. It typically includes 6-10 people from your target market. The focus group’s major goal is to answer “why,” “what,” and “how.” 

Focus groups have the advantage of not requiring face-to-face interaction. Focus groups can now be issued online surveys on multiple devices, and responses can be collected instantly. 

However, know that this is one of the more costly online qualitative research approaches. They usually explain complex processes. This strategy is great for market research and concept testing.

3. Discussion Boards

Similar to focus groups, discussion boards effectively collect dynamic data over time. Like an online forum , the researcher can initiate a debate and invite participants to add and expand on one other’s ideas. Using prompts and probes, the researcher can have as much or as little input as needed. A forum can be active for days or weeks.

Marketers can use these approaches to get feedback on a new product. Also, these techniques can help marketers grasp different perspectives on the product and can get to know their customers.

4. Case-study

In recent years, the case study approach has evolved into a robust qualitative research method. This is considered one of the best methods to describe an organization or entity.

This research strategy is employed in fields like education and social sciences. This method may appear complex, but it is one of the simplest to use because it requires a complete understanding of data gathering methods and data inference.

5. Pictures and Videos 

Pictures and videos are also interactive qualitative approaches. This is, in fact, one of the most popular qualitative research strategies today. Respondents can contribute photographs or videos to illustrate their stories. Respondents could, for example, give video footage together with a written evaluation of a product.

6. Record-Keeping or Logging

This strategy uses existing reputable documents and information sources as data sources. One can look through books and other reference material to gather data for the research in this method.

7. Ethnographic study

It is the most in-depth approach to studying people in their natural habitat. An organization, a city, or a remote place could be the target audience for this strategy. 

Cultures, difficulties, motivations, and contexts are studied in this study. Geographical constraints can affect data collection. Instead of interviews and debates, you get to see the natural environment.

This type of research might range from a few days to a few years because it includes close observation and data collection. It is a time-consuming and challenging strategy that relies on the researcher’s ability to examine, observe, and deduce the data.

8. Observation Method

Lastly, in the list, we have the observation method. This is a method of collecting data using subjective methods. Researchers use subjective approaches to gather qualitative data to obtain information or data. Qualitative observation is used to compare quality.

It involves characteristics, not measures. Sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing are all examples of qualitative observation.

It is necessary to do an in-depth analysis of your qualitative data after it has been collected in order to identify the essential themes and insights from your research.

Once the qualitative research is completed and the essential insights have been identified, the next step is to utilize the same insights in the subsequent stages of developing a product or marketing strategy. Moreover, you can use these insights to narrow down your target audience.

Aside from that, your research may have elicited some new ideas and notions that you would like to investigate further, forming the basis for quantitative analysis to determine whether these viewpoints represent the general public.

Related Post: Key Difference Between Database and Data Warehouse

Why Do You Need Qualitative Research?

In contrast to a closed question survey, qualitative procedures provide a unique level of information that is impossible to obtain via a quantitative survey. Respondents are free to share their own experiences, opinions, and feelings without feeling compelled to do so

Qualitative methods provide a more dynamic approach to research because they allow the researcher to follow up on responses given by respondents in real-time, resulting in valuable conversation around a topic that would not otherwise be possible with a structured survey. 

When it comes to capturing accurate and in-depth insights, qualitative research methodologies are the go-to method for researchers. 

It is extremely beneficial to record “factual facts.” Here are some examples of when qualitative research should be conducted.

• When developing a new product or producing a new concept
• Evaluating your product, brand, or service in order to improve your marketing approach
• To better understand how your target audience reacts to marketing campaigns and other communications.
• To recognize your own personal strengths and flaws
• Understanding customers’ purchase behavior  
• To explore market demographics, segments, and customer groups. 
• To obtain information on the public’s perception of a brand, company, or product.

The Bottom Line

So, this is all about qualitative research and quantitative research. Based on the above discussion, it is safe to say that Qualitative research makes up for what quantitative research lacks in terms of meaning depth. Having access to both types of research methods allows for the fulfilment of all research needs. 

In a nutshell, qualitative methods complement quantitative research approaches perfectly. Together, they present a once-in-a-lifetime chance for businesses to gather detailed information on their customers, which they can use to better their marketing efforts and increase their bottom line.

Looking for professional help with writing research papers online?

Every day there are more and more services that will write my essay for me online . Thanks to their work, you can save a lot of time.

Related Posts:

1 thought on “ Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research ”

Thanks for your post.

Comments are closed.

Qualitative Study

Affiliations.

• 1 University of Nebraska Medical Center
• 2 GDB Research and Statistical Consulting
• 3 GDB Research and Statistical Consulting/McLaren Macomb Hospital
• PMID: 29262162
• Bookshelf ID: NBK470395

Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervene or introduce treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. It answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much. It could be structured as a stand-alone study, purely relying on qualitative data or it could be part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data. This review introduces the readers to some basic concepts, definitions, terminology, and application of qualitative research.

Qualitative research at its core, ask open-ended questions whose answers are not easily put into numbers such as ‘how’ and ‘why’. Due to the open-ended nature of the research questions at hand, qualitative research design is often not linear in the same way quantitative design is. One of the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to explain processes and patterns of human behavior that can be difficult to quantify. Phenomena such as experiences, attitudes, and behaviors can be difficult to accurately capture quantitatively, whereas a qualitative approach allows participants themselves to explain how, why, or what they were thinking, feeling, and experiencing at a certain time or during an event of interest. Quantifying qualitative data certainly is possible, but at its core, qualitative data is looking for themes and patterns that can be difficult to quantify and it is important to ensure that the context and narrative of qualitative work are not lost by trying to quantify something that is not meant to be quantified.

However, while qualitative research is sometimes placed in opposition to quantitative research, where they are necessarily opposites and therefore ‘compete’ against each other and the philosophical paradigms associated with each, qualitative and quantitative work are not necessarily opposites nor are they incompatible. While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. For instance, qualitative research can help expand and deepen understanding of data or results obtained from quantitative analysis. For example, say a quantitative analysis has determined that there is a correlation between length of stay and level of patient satisfaction, but why does this correlation exist? This dual-focus scenario shows one way in which qualitative and quantitative research could be integrated together.

Examples of Qualitative Research Approaches

Ethnography

Ethnography as a research design has its origins in social and cultural anthropology, and involves the researcher being directly immersed in the participant’s environment. Through this immersion, the ethnographer can use a variety of data collection techniques with the aim of being able to produce a comprehensive account of the social phenomena that occurred during the research period. That is to say, the researcher’s aim with ethnography is to immerse themselves into the research population and come out of it with accounts of actions, behaviors, events, etc. through the eyes of someone involved in the population. Direct involvement of the researcher with the target population is one benefit of ethnographic research because it can then be possible to find data that is otherwise very difficult to extract and record.

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory is the “generation of a theoretical model through the experience of observing a study population and developing a comparative analysis of their speech and behavior.” As opposed to quantitative research which is deductive and tests or verifies an existing theory, grounded theory research is inductive and therefore lends itself to research that is aiming to study social interactions or experiences. In essence, Grounded Theory’s goal is to explain for example how and why an event occurs or how and why people might behave a certain way. Through observing the population, a researcher using the Grounded Theory approach can then develop a theory to explain the phenomena of interest.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is defined as the “study of the meaning of phenomena or the study of the particular”. At first glance, it might seem that Grounded Theory and Phenomenology are quite similar, but upon careful examination, the differences can be seen. At its core, phenomenology looks to investigate experiences from the perspective of the individual. Phenomenology is essentially looking into the ‘lived experiences’ of the participants and aims to examine how and why participants behaved a certain way, from their perspective . Herein lies one of the main differences between Grounded Theory and Phenomenology. Grounded Theory aims to develop a theory for social phenomena through an examination of various data sources whereas Phenomenology focuses on describing and explaining an event or phenomena from the perspective of those who have experienced it.

Narrative Research

One of qualitative research’s strengths lies in its ability to tell a story, often from the perspective of those directly involved in it. Reporting on qualitative research involves including details and descriptions of the setting involved and quotes from participants. This detail is called ‘thick’ or ‘rich’ description and is a strength of qualitative research. Narrative research is rife with the possibilities of ‘thick’ description as this approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals, in the hopes of creating a cohesive story, or narrative. While it might seem like a waste of time to focus on such a specific, individual level, understanding one or two people’s narratives for an event or phenomenon can help to inform researchers about the influences that helped shape that narrative. The tension or conflict of differing narratives can be “opportunities for innovation”.

Research Paradigm

Research paradigms are the assumptions, norms, and standards that underpin different approaches to research. Essentially, research paradigms are the ‘worldview’ that inform research. It is valuable for researchers, both qualitative and quantitative, to understand what paradigm they are working within because understanding the theoretical basis of research paradigms allows researchers to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the approach being used and adjust accordingly. Different paradigms have different ontology and epistemologies . Ontology is defined as the "assumptions about the nature of reality” whereas epistemology is defined as the “assumptions about the nature of knowledge” that inform the work researchers do. It is important to understand the ontological and epistemological foundations of the research paradigm researchers are working within to allow for a full understanding of the approach being used and the assumptions that underpin the approach as a whole. Further, it is crucial that researchers understand their own ontological and epistemological assumptions about the world in general because their assumptions about the world will necessarily impact how they interact with research. A discussion of the research paradigm is not complete without describing positivist, postpositivist, and constructivist philosophies.

Positivist vs Postpositivist

To further understand qualitative research, we need to discuss positivist and postpositivist frameworks. Positivism is a philosophy that the scientific method can and should be applied to social as well as natural sciences. Essentially, positivist thinking insists that the social sciences should use natural science methods in its research which stems from positivist ontology that there is an objective reality that exists that is fully independent of our perception of the world as individuals. Quantitative research is rooted in positivist philosophy, which can be seen in the value it places on concepts such as causality, generalizability, and replicability.

Conversely, postpositivists argue that social reality can never be one hundred percent explained but it could be approximated. Indeed, qualitative researchers have been insisting that there are “fundamental limits to the extent to which the methods and procedures of the natural sciences could be applied to the social world” and therefore postpositivist philosophy is often associated with qualitative research. An example of positivist versus postpositivist values in research might be that positivist philosophies value hypothesis-testing, whereas postpositivist philosophies value the ability to formulate a substantive theory.

Constructivist

Constructivism is a subcategory of postpositivism. Most researchers invested in postpositivist research are constructivist as well, meaning they think there is no objective external reality that exists but rather that reality is constructed. Constructivism is a theoretical lens that emphasizes the dynamic nature of our world. “Constructivism contends that individuals’ views are directly influenced by their experiences, and it is these individual experiences and views that shape their perspective of reality”. Essentially, Constructivist thought focuses on how ‘reality’ is not a fixed certainty and experiences, interactions, and backgrounds give people a unique view of the world. Constructivism contends, unlike in positivist views, that there is not necessarily an ‘objective’ reality we all experience. This is the ‘relativist’ ontological view that reality and the world we live in are dynamic and socially constructed. Therefore, qualitative scientific knowledge can be inductive as well as deductive.”

So why is it important to understand the differences in assumptions that different philosophies and approaches to research have? Fundamentally, the assumptions underpinning the research tools a researcher selects provide an overall base for the assumptions the rest of the research will have and can even change the role of the researcher themselves. For example, is the researcher an ‘objective’ observer such as in positivist quantitative work? Or is the researcher an active participant in the research itself, as in postpositivist qualitative work? Understanding the philosophical base of the research undertaken allows researchers to fully understand the implications of their work and their role within the research, as well as reflect on their own positionality and bias as it pertains to the research they are conducting.

Data Sampling

The better the sample represents the intended study population, the more likely the researcher is to encompass the varying factors at play. The following are examples of participant sampling and selection:

Purposive sampling- selection based on the researcher’s rationale in terms of being the most informative.

Criterion sampling-selection based on pre-identified factors.

Convenience sampling- selection based on availability.

Snowball sampling- the selection is by referral from other participants or people who know potential participants.

Extreme case sampling- targeted selection of rare cases.

Typical case sampling-selection based on regular or average participants.

Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative research uses several techniques including interviews, focus groups, and observation. [1] [2] [3] Interviews may be unstructured, with open-ended questions on a topic and the interviewer adapts to the responses. Structured interviews have a predetermined number of questions that every participant is asked. It is usually one on one and is appropriate for sensitive topics or topics needing an in-depth exploration. Focus groups are often held with 8-12 target participants and are used when group dynamics and collective views on a topic are desired. Researchers can be a participant-observer to share the experiences of the subject or a non-participant or detached observer.

While quantitative research design prescribes a controlled environment for data collection, qualitative data collection may be in a central location or in the environment of the participants, depending on the study goals and design. Qualitative research could amount to a large amount of data. Data is transcribed which may then be coded manually or with the use of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software or CAQDAS such as ATLAS.ti or NVivo.

After the coding process, qualitative research results could be in various formats. It could be a synthesis and interpretation presented with excerpts from the data. Results also could be in the form of themes and theory or model development.

Dissemination

To standardize and facilitate the dissemination of qualitative research outcomes, the healthcare team can use two reporting standards. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research or COREQ is a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is a checklist covering a wider range of qualitative research.

Examples of Application

Many times a research question will start with qualitative research. The qualitative research will help generate the research hypothesis which can be tested with quantitative methods. After the data is collected and analyzed with quantitative methods, a set of qualitative methods can be used to dive deeper into the data for a better understanding of what the numbers truly mean and their implications. The qualitative methods can then help clarify the quantitative data and also help refine the hypothesis for future research. Furthermore, with qualitative research researchers can explore subjects that are poorly studied with quantitative methods. These include opinions, individual's actions, and social science research.

A good qualitative study design starts with a goal or objective. This should be clearly defined or stated. The target population needs to be specified. A method for obtaining information from the study population must be carefully detailed to ensure there are no omissions of part of the target population. A proper collection method should be selected which will help obtain the desired information without overly limiting the collected data because many times, the information sought is not well compartmentalized or obtained. Finally, the design should ensure adequate methods for analyzing the data. An example may help better clarify some of the various aspects of qualitative research.

A researcher wants to decrease the number of teenagers who smoke in their community. The researcher could begin by asking current teen smokers why they started smoking through structured or unstructured interviews (qualitative research). The researcher can also get together a group of current teenage smokers and conduct a focus group to help brainstorm factors that may have prevented them from starting to smoke (qualitative research).

In this example, the researcher has used qualitative research methods (interviews and focus groups) to generate a list of ideas of both why teens start to smoke as well as factors that may have prevented them from starting to smoke. Next, the researcher compiles this data. The research found that, hypothetically, peer pressure, health issues, cost, being considered “cool,” and rebellious behavior all might increase or decrease the likelihood of teens starting to smoke.

The researcher creates a survey asking teen participants to rank how important each of the above factors is in either starting smoking (for current smokers) or not smoking (for current non-smokers). This survey provides specific numbers (ranked importance of each factor) and is thus a quantitative research tool.

The researcher can use the results of the survey to focus efforts on the one or two highest-ranked factors. Let us say the researcher found that health was the major factor that keeps teens from starting to smoke, and peer pressure was the major factor that contributed to teens to start smoking. The researcher can go back to qualitative research methods to dive deeper into each of these for more information. The researcher wants to focus on how to keep teens from starting to smoke, so they focus on the peer pressure aspect.

The researcher can conduct interviews and/or focus groups (qualitative research) about what types and forms of peer pressure are commonly encountered, where the peer pressure comes from, and where smoking first starts. The researcher hypothetically finds that peer pressure often occurs after school at the local teen hangouts, mostly the local park. The researcher also hypothetically finds that peer pressure comes from older, current smokers who provide the cigarettes.

The researcher could further explore this observation made at the local teen hangouts (qualitative research) and take notes regarding who is smoking, who is not, and what observable factors are at play for peer pressure of smoking. The researcher finds a local park where many local teenagers hang out and see that a shady, overgrown area of the park is where the smokers tend to hang out. The researcher notes the smoking teenagers buy their cigarettes from a local convenience store adjacent to the park where the clerk does not check identification before selling cigarettes. These observations fall under qualitative research.

If the researcher returns to the park and counts how many individuals smoke in each region of the park, this numerical data would be quantitative research. Based on the researcher's efforts thus far, they conclude that local teen smoking and teenagers who start to smoke may decrease if there are fewer overgrown areas of the park and the local convenience store does not sell cigarettes to underage individuals.

The researcher could try to have the parks department reassess the shady areas to make them less conducive to the smokers or identify how to limit the sales of cigarettes to underage individuals by the convenience store. The researcher would then cycle back to qualitative methods of asking at-risk population their perceptions of the changes, what factors are still at play, as well as quantitative research that includes teen smoking rates in the community, the incidence of new teen smokers, among others.

Copyright © 2024, StatPearls Publishing LLC.

• Introduction
• Issues of Concern
• Clinical Significance
• Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
• Review Questions

Publication types

• Study Guide

• Open access
• Published: 09 May 2024

Exploring factors affecting the unsafe behavior of health care workers’ in using respiratory masks during COVID-19 pandemic in Iran: a qualitative study

• Azadeh Tahernejad 1 ,
• Sanaz Sohrabizadeh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9170-178X 1 &
• Somayeh Tahernejad 2  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  608 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

37 Accesses

Metrics details

The use of respiratory masks has been one of the most important measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, correct and safe use of breathing masks is vital. The purpose of this study was to exploring factors affecting the unsafe behavior of health care workers’ in using respiratory masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran.

This study was carried out using the conventional qualitative content analysis. Participants were the number of 26 health care workers selected by purposive sampling method. Data collection was conducted through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was done using the content analysis approach of Graneheim and Lundman. This study aligns with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist and was conducted between December 2021 and April 2022.

The factors affecting the unsafe behavior of health care workers while using respiratory masks were divided into 3 main categories and 8 sub-categories. Categories included discomfort and pain (four sub-categories of headache and dizziness, skin discomfort, respiratory discomfort, feeling hot and thirsty), negative effect on performance (four sub-categories of effect on physical function, effect on cognitive function, system function vision, and hearing), and a negative effect on the mental state (two subcategories of anxiety and depression).

The findings can help identify and analyze possible scenarios to reduce unsafe behaviors at the time of using breathing masks. The necessary therapeutic and preventive interventions regarding the complications of using masks, as well as planning to train personnel for the correct use of masks with minimal health effects are suggested.

Peer Review reports

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, requiring Health Care Workers (HCWs) to adopt strict infection control measures to protect themselves [ 1 ]. Among these measures, the proper use of respiratory masks plays a crucial role in preventing the transmission of the virus [ 2 ]. Iran was among the initial countries impacted by COVID-19. In Iran, as in many other countries, HCWs have been at the forefront of the battle against COVID-19, facing various challenges in utilizing respiratory masks effectively [ 3 ]. Over 7.6 million Iranians have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with more than 146,480 reported deaths as of August 2023 [ 4 ]. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Iran’s healthcare system experienced significant impacts as well [ 5 ].

Despite the passage of several years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, new variant of the virus continues to emerge worldwide. It is crucial to be prepared for future pandemics and similar biological disasters.

Due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission via respiratory droplets, the use of masks and personal protective equipment is essential [ 6 ]. The World Health Organization recommended the use of medical masks, such as surgical masks, for HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 7 ]. These masks are designed to provide a barrier to respiratory droplets and help reduce the transmission of the virus [ 8 ].

Few studies have been devoted to negative aspects of using respiratory masks in human being. The physiological and adverse effects of using PPE have been investigated in a systematic review study [ 9 ]. In another review study, of skin problems related to the use of respiratory masks were studied [ 10 ]. Also, in some studies, a significant relationship has been found between the time of using masks and the severity of the adverse effects of using masks [ 11 ]. In all the above studies, questionnaires have been used to check the prevalence of these adverse effects among HCWs.

Incorrect use of masks is considered as the unsafe behaviors of HCWs. In some studies, unsafe behaviors are defined as disobeying an accepted safe method while working with the capability of causing an accident [ 12 ]. Since the reasons for unsafe behavior are complex and multifaceted, their prevention requires a clear understanding of important and influential factors. In various studies about the prevalence of unsafe behaviors in work environments, several factors such as individual characteristics, psychological aspects, safety conditions, perceived risk, and stress have been introduced as effective factors in demonstrating the unsafe behaviors [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. However, the findings are still unable to provide a deep understanding of the underlying causes and motivations contributing to unsafe behaviors.

In the present study, unsafe behaviors while using respiratory masks is defined as the behaviors that are seen by some HCWs, which reduce the effectiveness of respiratory masks due to improper placement on the face or hand contact with the mask [ 15 ]. Some researchers in their studies indicated that other unknown factors are also effective in the unsafe behaviors [ 14 ]. However, the findings are still unable to provide a deep understanding of the underlying causes and motivations contributing to unsafe behaviors. Qualitative studies are needed to answer these questions and determine its causes. Hence, the present study is aimed to explore the factors affecting the unsafe behavior of HCWs while using respiratory masks during the COVID-19 pandemic through a qualitative study.

Study design

This study was carried out using conventional qualitative content analysis (item 9 in COREQ checklist). The interviews explored HCWs’ experiences regarding factors affecting the unsafe behavior in using respiratory masks during covid-19 pandemic in Iran. This research adheres to the guidelines outlined in the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).

This study was conducted in government and non-government hospitals in Tehran, Mashhad and Rafsanjan that admitted patients with COVID-19 disease. The authors’ place of work and access to participants were important causes of choosing the settings. Moreover, these hospitals experienced a large amount of patients seeking healthcare during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study was performed between December 2021 and April 2022.

Participants

In this study, interviews were performed with healthcare workers (HCWs) including nurses, physicians and hospital workers who had direct contact with patients that used masks for more than 4 h in each work shift. Also, participants frequently utilized surgical masks. Among them, few employed filter masks or a combination of both types. The inclusion criteria were people with experience of using respiratory masks for more than one year and the ability to express their experiences and point of views. The sole exclusion criterion of the current study was a lack of interest in further participation. The participants were selected using purposive sampling method (item 10 in COREQ checklist) in which the researcher selected the most informed people who could explain their experiences regarding the research topic [ 16 ]. The number of participants was determined based on the data saturation principle in which no new concepts were obtained. Data saturation was achieved after 24 interviews, and to ensure saturation, two more interviews were also performed. Finally, the total number of participants was 26 people (items 12–13 in COREQ checklist).

Data gathering

Data collection was performed through in-depth face to face (item 11 in COREQ checklist) semi-structured interviews. The first author, who received training in qualitative research methods, conducted all the interviews (items 1–5 in COREQ checklist). The participants were presented with information about the research topic, objectives, and the researchers’ identities. The researcher thoroughly described the study procedure to those who consented to participate, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants (items 6–8 in COREQ checklist). The data was gathered in the workplace of the participants. Additionally, demographic data of the participants was documented (items 14–16 in COREQ checklist). At first, 5 unstructured interviews were done to extract the primary concept, and then, 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted using the interview guide. The interviews were done in a quiet and comfortable place. The interviews started with simple and general topics and were gradually directed to specific questions based on the answers. Some of the questions were: Based on your experience, what factors are effective in not using your mask safely?

New concepts were extracted from each interview, and this process continued until data saturation was reached. After obtaining permission from the participants to record the interviews, the implementation of the interviews was done immediately after the completion of each interview to increase the accuracy of the obtained data. The duration of the interviews was between 15 and 40 min (30 min on average). Field notes were made during or after the interview and transcripts were returned to participants for the comments and corrections (items 17–23 in COREQ checklist).

Data analysis

Data analysis was done using the five-step content analysis approach of Graneheim and Lundman [ 17 ]. Immediately after conducting each interview, the recorded file of the interview was transcribed in Word software. The interview text was read several times and based on the research question, all the content related to the participants’ experiences were extracted in the form of meaning units. In addition, notes were written in the margins of the text and then, the abstracted meaning units were designated as the code. Subsequently, the compiled codes were categorized into subcategories according to similarities. This process was repeated for all transcribed interviews until the main categories were established. The whole data analysis process was carried out by the researchers. Direct quotes from the interviews included in the results section to elucidate the codes, categories, and themes. (items 24–32 in COREQ checklist).

Trustworthiness

The strategies of transferability, dependability, credibility outlined by Lincoln and Guba were employed to achieve data trustworthiness [ 18 ]. Credibility and dependability were established through data triangulation approach, which involved interviews and field notes. Furthermore, peer check and member check were applied for ensuring credibility. To obtain member check, the transcribed interviews and codes were shared with some participants to receive their feedbacks. In the case of peer check, the research team and independent experts were verified the extracted codes and sub-categories. Data transferability and Confirmability were met through the detailed explanation of the research stages and process.

Women were 50% of all participants and the highest frequency of education was bachelor’s degree ( n  = 17). Furthermore, the highest amount of work experience was 22 years (Table  1 ).

In the present study, 689 initial codes were identified in the initial writing, and after removing duplicate codes and cleaning, the number of final codes included 132 codes. After reviewing and analyzing the data, the factors affecting the unsafe behavior of HCWs while using respiratory masks were divided into 3 main categories and 8 sub-categories (Table  2 ). Categories included discomfort and pain (four sub-categories of headache and dizziness, skin discomfort, respiratory discomfort, feeling hot and thirsty), negative effect on performance (four sub-categories of effect on physical function, effect on cognitive function, system function vision and hearing), and a negative effect on the mental state (two subcategories of anxiety and depression).

Pain and discomfort

Some of the participants reported that the reason for improper and unsafe use of the mask is feeling pain and discomfort, and the reasons include the four subcategories of headache and dizziness, skin discomfort, respiratory discomfort, discomfort caused by heat and thirst.

Skin disorders

The side effects of the mask on the skin are of the important factors in this category. Thus, some participants, due effects of the mask to their skin, limited the use of the mask or did not use it correctly. Among the skin problems experienced by the participants were acne and skin sensitivities, which in some cases required drug treatments. The subcategory of skin sensitivities such as itching and burning was mentioned by more than 70% of the samples as the most important cause of discomfort.

“…I can’t help touching my mask. After half an hour when I put on the new mask, my face, especially my nose, starts to itch badly and I often have to blow my nose from under the mask or over the mask with my fingers, palm or the back of my hand…” (P1)

Respiratory disorders

Most of the participants in the study noted to problems such as difficulty in breathing, heart palpitations, carbon dioxide and unpleasant smell inside the mask as the most important respiratory problems. Therefore, it can be one of the important reasons for removing the mask and unsafe behavior in using the mask.

“… at any opportunity, I remove my mask to take a breath…” (P15)

Feeling hot and thirsty

Temperature discomfort, especially in long-term use and when people had to use two masks, was mentioned as an annoying factor.

“… the heat inside the mask bothers me a lot, I sweat and the mask gets wet… no matter how much water I drink, I still feel thirsty…” (P6)

Unfitness of mask with the individual’s face

Another important point extracted from the interviews was the importance of when to use the mask. In this way, as the time of using the mask increased, the person’s feeling of discomfort due to the mismatch between the belt and the mask increased, because the feeling of pressure and pain on the nose, behind the ears, and the face usually occurs several hours after wearing the mask. Several participants reported experiencing discomfort and headaches after wearing the mask. Although These headaches were often short-term and didn’t have long-term complications according to the participants’ reports, they could affect the work performance of HCWs and their behavior in the correct use of respiratory masks.

“…. After a while, the mask puts pressure on my nose and parts of my head and face. Sometimes I touch and move it unintentionally…” (P3) “… if I don’t move the mask on my face, I get a headache because the mask strap puts pressure on my head and nose…” (P21)

Effects on performance

The participants reported that wearing a mask for a long time is one of their important problems in performing their duties, and one of the main categories extracted from this study is the effects on performance, which includes the physical, cognitive, vision and hearing performance.

Effects on physical performance

The effect on the physical performance of HCWs had less effect on their unsafe behavior in using masks than other cases. But when masks were used for a long time and people were more physically tired, sometimes people removed the mask to increase their ability to perform physical work.

“…when I wear a mask, it becomes difficult for me to walk and do physical work, as if I am short of breath…” (P17)

Effects on cognitive function

It was the most frequent subcategory. Because when people feel uncomfortable, their attention decreases and part of the working memory is involved in feeling uncomfortable. Of course, it should be noted that many of the participants in the present study reported the decrease in alertness to be an effective factor in reducing their cognitive performance.

“…When I take off the mask, I can focus better on my work. Especially when I wear it in longer times, I get tired. Many times, I move the mask to finish my job faster…” (P8)

Based on the participants’ point of views, data perception (understanding information through the visual and auditory systems) decreases while using the mask. However, the negative effect of mask on the visual performance affects the unsafe behavior of the HCWs in the incorrect use of the mask and moving it on the face more than other cases. Most of the people who used glasses reported the steam condensation under the glasses as an important cause of discomfort and interference of the mask with their work duties.

“…Using glasses with a mask is really annoying. I have eye pain and burning, and there is always a fog in front of my eyes…” (P2)

Effects on mental status

Among the other main categories extracted in this study is the effects on mental status, which includes the subcategories of depression and anxiety. The negative effect of the mask on the mental state unconsciously affects the person’s behavior in using the respiratory mask.

Some of the participants in this study reported feeling anxious while wearing the mask for various reasons. Therefore, they refuse to wear masks, although they have no justification for doing so. In many cases, the participants in this study expressed that during higher psychological stress, they suffer more from wearing masks and tend to wear them improperly.

“… Sometimes I distractedly take off my mask so that the other person hears my voice better. However, there are many patients, So I am afraid of getting infected. Sometimes I have to speak loudly and this makes me furious … I worry about making a mistake or misunderstanding the conversation, and …” (P4)

One of the most important factors mentioned as a cause of depression was harder communication with colleagues and patients while wearing a mask. This occurs by increasing the physical and mental workload and placing people in social isolation. In this situation, HCWs sometimes consciously take off their masks, so that they can communicate with each other more conveniently.

“…When I wear a mask, I get tired when talking to others. I prefer not to talk to my colleague. Sometimes I don’t pay attention, I take the mask down so they can understand me …” (P5)

To the best of our knowledge, this research is one of the first qualitative studies to extract the experiences of HCWs for explaining the factors affecting the unsafe behavior of HCWs in using respiratory masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. Although many reasons can cause the unsafe behavior of HCWs in the correct use of respiratory masks in the hospital, according to the present results, three main categories include discomfort and pain, effects on performance, effects on mental status. Skin and respiratory discomforts and the negative effect of the mask on cognitive functions are among the most important factors affecting the unsafe behavior of HCWs in the field of correct use of respiratory masks.

Based on the present study, the participants experienced discomfort and pain while using the mask, and this was one of the important factors of unsafe use of respiratory masks. Discomfort while wearing masks has been confirmed in several studies [ 19 ]. Additionally, in a similar study, researchers found that wearing face masks during the COVID-19 era heightens the discomfort experienced by HCWs [ 20 ]. Some studies have delved into these discomforts in greater detail. For example, the prevalence of skin disorders among HCWs using PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported to be significant [ 21 ]. Some researchers also reported significant prevalence of respiratory disorders and headaches when using PPE [ 22 ]. The findings of a study suggested that a novel form of headache has emerged among HCWs when using a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both exacerbation of existing headaches and the onset of new headaches have been observed to rise with mask usage, irrespective of the use duration [ 23 ]. In some studies, a significant percentage of people reported feeling thirsty and dehydrated after long-term use of respiratory masks [ 24 ]. Several studies reported disturbing rates of perspiration from prolonged use of respiratory masks [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. A similar study reported that prolonged exposure to masks and protective gear, especially among HCWs, can lead to various issues such as acne, skin irritation, cognitive impairment, and headaches [ 28 ]. According to the results of the present study, discomfort often causes HCWs to move the mask and disturb the correct fitness of the mask on their face.

The results of the present study indicated that respiratory masks have the ability to hinder the work performance of their users. Various studies have confirmed the adverse effect of respiratory masks on HCWs performance. A similar research indicated that respiratory masks reduce physical performance [ 29 ]. Several studies have highlighted the issue of mask users’ ability to see and read being hindered by fogging of glasses [ 22 , 27 , 30 ]. The feel of weakness to perform cognitive tasks has also been reported in various studies [ 31 , 32 ]. An increase in physical fatigue has been mentioned in some studies as an adverse effect of respiratory masks [ 27 , 31 ]. A research showed the effect of respiratory mask on hearing and visual performance [ 33 ]. Another study reported that high-protection respiratory masks reduced physiological and psychological ability, especially if the workers perform physical work [ 34 ].

The third category is related to the negative impact on the psychological state of HCWs. Some studies noted the use of some PPE, including respiratory masks, as one of the possible reasons for the increase of mental health problems among HCWs [ 35 , 36 ]. Before the prevalence of the COVID-19 virus, the hypothesis of the negative effect of respiratory masks on the mental state of people was investigated and confirmed by some studies [ 37 ]. Furthermore, one study reported that wearing respiratory masks leads to an increase in anxiety [ 38 ].

The non-ergonomic nature of respiratory masks (the lack of suitability of masks for people for long-term use) can affect the effectiveness of respiratory masks by encouraging people to perform unsafe behaviors in using respiratory masks [ 39 ]. An important point was that the attitude and knowledge of health care works regarding the use of respiratory masks were not identified as the cause of unsafe behavior of HCWs. However, this factor has been reported in some previous studies as a reason for people not using PPE properly [ 40 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic situation and the extensive information collected about this pandemic may improve the level of awareness and the attitude of the HCWs.

The escalation in infection rates among HCWs, despite receiving training and utilizing personal protective equipment, served as a catalyst for this research endeavor. So far, there has been a deficiency in the context-specific research that could offer a more profound understanding of this issue. Therefore, the outcomes of this qualitative study may prove beneficial in enhancing the design and execution of respiratory protection programs for HCWs in infectious hospital departments or during similar pandemics.

Implications for nursing practice

It is expected that the findings of this study can provide a better understanding of the factors influencing the unsafe behavior of HCWs while using masks. Furthermore, it can be used as a preliminary study to evaluate the effectiveness of safety and infection control programs in hospitals in the COVID-19 pandemic and similar disasters in the future.

Discomfort and pain, effects on performance, and effects on mental status are important factors for unsafe behavior of HCWs’ in using respiratory masks. Our results could contribute to the identification and analysis of possible scenarios to reduce unsafe behaviors in the use of respiratory masks. Accordingly, it is recommended to provide the necessary therapeutic and preventive interventions regarding the complications of using masks. Planning to reduce the side effects of masks and training personnel on the correct use of masks with minimal health effects are recommended as well.

Limitations

The physical and cognitive workload of HCWs which increased during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 41 ], had possible impacts on the work ability of the staff [ 42 ]. Therefore, their explanation about the negative effects of wearing masks may be affected by their specific working conditions.

Data availability

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Al-Tawfiq JA, Temsah M-H. Perspective on the challenges of COVID-19 facing healthcare workers. Infection. 2023;51(2):541–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

SeyedAlinaghi S, Karimi A, Afsahi AM, Mirzapour P, Varshochi S, Mojdeganlou H et al. The effectiveness of face masks in preventing covid-19 transmission: a systematic review. Infectious disorders-drug targets (formerly current drug targets-infectious disorders). 2023;23(8):19–29.

Carvalho T, Krammer F, Iwasaki A. The first 12 months of COVID-19: a timeline of immunological insights. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021;21(4):245–56.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Razimoghadam M, Yaseri M, Rezaee M, Fazaeli A, Daroudi R. Non-COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran: a longitudinal assessment of 41 million people in 2019–2022. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):380.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Takian A, Aarabi SS, Semnani F, Rayati Damavandi A. Preparedness for future pandemics: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. Int J Public Health. 2022;67:1605094.

Toksoy CK, Demirbaş H, Bozkurt E, Acar H, Börü ÜT. Headache related to mask use of healthcare workers in COVID-19 pandemic. Korean J pain. 2021;34(2):241–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Matusiak Ł, Szepietowska M, Krajewski P, Białynicki-Birula R, Szepietowski JC. Inconveniences due to the use of face masks during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a survey study of 876 young people. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33(4).

Seresirikachorn K, Phoophiboon V, Chobarporn T, Tiankanon K, Aeumjaturapat S, Chusakul S, et al. Decontamination and reuse of surgical masks and N95 filtering facepiece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021;42(1):25–30.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ha JF. The COVID-19 pandemic, personal protective equipment and respirator: a narrative review. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(10):e13578.

Johnson AT. Respirator masks protect health but impact performance: a review. J Biol Eng. 2016;10(1):1–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Shubhanshu K, Singh A. Prolonged use of N95 mask a boon or bane to healthcare workers during covid–19 pandemic. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021:1–4.

Arghami S, Pouya Kian M, Mohammadfam I. Effects of safety signs on the modification of unsafe behaviours. J Adv Med Biomedical Res. 2009;17(68):93–8.

Google Scholar  

Hashemi Nejad N, Mohammad Fam I, Jafari Nodoshan R, Dortaj Rabori E, Kakaei H. Assessment of unsafe behavior types by safety behavior sampling method in oil refinery workers in 2009 and suggestions for control. Occup Med Q J. 2012;4(1):25–33.

Asadi Z, Akbari H, Ghiyasi S, Dehdashti A, Motalebi Kashani M. Survey of unsafe acts and its influencing factors in metal smelting industry workers in Kashan, 2016. Iran Occup Health. 2018;15(1):55–64.

Khandan M, Koohpaei A, Mobinizadeh V. The relationship between emotional intelligence with general health and safety behavior among workers of a manufacturing industry in 2014-15. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci. 2017;24(1):63–70.

Rahmanian E, Nekoei-Moghadam M, Mardani M. Factors affecting futures studies in hospitals: a qualitative study. J Qualitative Res Health Sci. 2020;7(4):361–71.

Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.

Korstjens I, Moser A, Series. Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):120–4.

Shenal BV, Radonovich LJ Jr, Cheng J, Hodgson M, Bender BS. Discomfort and exertion associated with prolonged wear of respiratory protection in a health care setting. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012;9(1):59–64.

Nwosu ADG, Ossai EN, Onwuasoigwe O, Ahaotu F. Oxygen saturation and perceived discomfort with face mask types, in the era of COVID-19: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;39(1).

Montero-Vilchez T, Cuenca‐Barrales C, Martinez‐Lopez A, Molina‐Leyva A, Arias‐Santiago S. Skin adverse events related to personal protective equipment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35(10):1994–2006.

Jose S, Cyriac MC, Dhandapani M. Health problems and skin damages caused by personal protective equipment: experience of frontline nurses caring for critical COVID-19 patients in intensive care units. Indian J Crit care Medicine: peer-reviewed Official Publication Indian Soc Crit Care Med. 2021;25(2):134.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dargahi A, Jeddi F, Ghobadi H, Vosoughi M, Karami C, Sarailoo M, et al. Evaluation of masks’ internal and external surfaces used by health care workers and patients in coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) wards. Environ Res. 2021;196:110948.

Tabah A, Ramanan M, Laupland KB, Buetti N, Cortegiani A, Mellinghoff J, et al. Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): an international survey. J Crit Care. 2020;59:70–5.

Davey SL, Lee BJ, Robbins T, Randeva H, Thake CD. Heat stress and PPE during COVID-19: impact on healthcare workers’ performance, safety and well-being in NHS settings. J Hosp Infect. 2021;108:185–8.

Bansal K, Saji S, Mathur VP, Rahul M, Tewari N. A survey of self-perceived physical discomforts and health behaviors related to personal protective equipment of Indian dental professionals during COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Clin Pediatr Dentistry. 2021;14(6):784.

Agarwal A, Agarwal S, Motiani P. Difficulties encountered while using PPE kits and how to overcome them: an Indian perspective. Cureus. 2020;12(11).

Rosner E. Adverse effects of prolonged mask use among healthcare professionals during COVID-19. J Infect Dis Epidemiol. 2020;6(3):130.

Engeroff T, Groneberg DA, Niederer D. The impact of ubiquitous face masks and filtering face piece application during rest, work and exercise on gas exchange, pulmonary function and physical performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports medicine-open. 2021;7:1–20.

Arif A, Bhatti AM, Iram M, Masud M, Hadi O, Inam S. Compliance and difficulties faced by health care providers with variants of face masks, eye protection and face shield. Pakistan J Med Health Sci. 2021;15:94–7.

Garra GM, Parmentier D, Garra G. Physiologic effects and symptoms associated with extended-use medical mask and N95 respirators. Annals Work Exposures Health. 2021;65(7):862–7.

Sahebi A, Hasheminejad N, Shohani M, Yousefi A, Tahernejad S, Tahernejad A. Personal protective equipment-associated headaches in health care workers during COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2022;10.

Unoki T, Sakuramoto H, Sato R, Ouchi A, Kuribara T, Furumaya T, et al. Adverse effects of personal protective equipment among intensive care unit healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. SAGE Open Nurs. 2021;7:23779608211026164.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

AlGhamri AA. The effects of personal protective respirators on human motor, visual, and cognitive skills. 2012.

Chew NW, Lee GK, Tan BY, Jing M, Goh Y, Ngiam NJ, et al. A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;88:559–65.

Sharif S, Amin F, Hafiz M, Benzel E, Peev N, Dahlan RH, et al. COVID 19–depression and neurosurgeons. World Neurosurg. 2020;140:e401–10.

Maison N, Herbrüggen H, Schaub B, Schauberger C, Foth S, Grychtol R, et al. Impact of imposed social isolation and use of face masks on asthma course and mental health in pediatric and adult patients with recurrent wheeze and asthma. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2021;17(1):93.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Johnson AT, Dooly CR, Blanchard CA, Brown EY. Influence of anxiety level on work performance with and without a respirator mask. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1995;56(9):858–65.

Jazani RK, Seyedmehdi SM, Kavousi A, Javazm ST. A novel questionnaire to ergonomically assess respirators among health care staff: development and validation. Tanaffos. 2018;17(4):257.

Winter S, Thomas JH, Stephens DP, Davis JS. Particulate face masks for protection against airborne pathogens-one size does not fit all: an observational study. Crit Care Resusc. 2010;12(1):24–7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

de Oliveira Souza D. Health of nursing professionals: workload during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revista Brasileira De Med Do Trabalho. 2020;18(4):464.

Amirmahani M, Hasheminejad N, Tahernejad S, Nik HRT. Evaluation of work ability index and its association with job stress and musculoskeletal disorders among midwives during the Covid-19 pandemic. La Medicina Del Lavoro. 2022;113(4).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to appreciate all participants who accepted our invitations for interviews and shared their valuable experiences with us.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1983535511, Iran

Azadeh Tahernejad & Sanaz Sohrabizadeh

Department of Occupational Health Engineering and Safety at Work, School of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Somayeh Tahernejad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have read and approved the manuscript. AT, SS, ST are responsible for the overall conceptualization and oversight of the study, including study design, data interpretation, and manuscript write-up. AT is responsible for the first draft. All authors reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanaz Sohrabizadeh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (ethical code: IR.SBMU.PHNS.REC.1401.108). All the participants signed the written informed consent. Accordingly, all participants were informed about the research objectives, confidentiality of their personal information, and the possibility of their leaving or declining the interview sessions at any time. In addition, all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tahernejad, A., Sohrabizadeh, S. & Tahernejad, S. Exploring factors affecting the unsafe behavior of health care workers’ in using respiratory masks during COVID-19 pandemic in Iran: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 608 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11000-4

Download citation

Received : 03 September 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 09 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11000-4

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

• Respiratory mask
• Health care workers

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]