qualitative research form of data collected

Chapter 10. Introduction to Data Collection Techniques

Introduction.

Now that we have discussed various aspects of qualitative research, we can begin to collect data. This chapter serves as a bridge between the first half and second half of this textbook (and perhaps your course) by introducing techniques of data collection. You’ve already been introduced to some of this because qualitative research is often characterized by the form of data collection; for example, an ethnographic study is one that employs primarily observational data collection for the purpose of documenting and presenting a particular culture or ethnos. Thus, some of this chapter will operate as a review of material already covered, but we will be approaching it from the data-collection side rather than the tradition-of-inquiry side we explored in chapters 2 and 4.

Revisiting Approaches

There are four primary techniques of data collection used in qualitative research: interviews, focus groups, observations, and document review. [1] There are other available techniques, such as visual analysis (e.g., photo elicitation) and biography (e.g., autoethnography) that are sometimes used independently or supplementarily to one of the main forms. Not to confuse you unduly, but these various data collection techniques are employed differently by different qualitative research traditions so that sometimes the technique and the tradition become inextricably entwined. This is largely the case with observations and ethnography. The ethnographic tradition is fundamentally based on observational techniques. At the same time, traditions other than ethnography also employ observational techniques, so it is worthwhile thinking of “tradition” and “technique” separately (see figure 10.1).

Figure 10.1. Data Collection Techniques

Each of these data collection techniques will be the subject of its own chapter in the second half of this textbook. This chapter serves as an orienting overview and as the bridge between the conceptual/design portion of qualitative research and the actual practice of conducting qualitative research.

Overview of the Four Primary Approaches

Interviews are at the heart of qualitative research. Returning to epistemological foundations, it is during the interview that the researcher truly opens herself to hearing what others have to say, encouraging her interview subjects to reflect deeply on the meanings and values they hold. Interviews are used in almost every qualitative tradition but are particularly salient in phenomenological studies, studies seeking to understand the meaning of people’s lived experiences.

Focus groups can be seen as a type of interview, one in which a group of persons (ideally between five and twelve) is asked a series of questions focused on a particular topic or subject. They are sometimes used as the primary form of data collection, especially outside academic research. For example, businesses often employ focus groups to determine if a particular product is likely to sell. Among qualitative researchers, it is often used in conjunction with any other primary data collection technique as a form of “triangulation,” or a way of increasing the reliability of the study by getting at the object of study from multiple directions. [2] Some traditions, such as feminist approaches, also see the focus group as an important “consciousness-raising” tool.

If interviews are at the heart of qualitative research, observations are its lifeblood. Researchers who are more interested in the practices and behaviors of people than what they think or who are trying to understand the parameters of an organizational culture rely on observations as their primary form of data collection. The notes they make “in the field” (either during observations or afterward) form the “data” that will be analyzed. Ethnographers, those seeking to describe a particular ethnos, or culture, believe that observations are more reliable guides to that culture than what people have to say about it. Observations are thus the primary form of data collection for ethnographers, albeit often supplemented with in-depth interviews.

Some would say that these three—interviews, focus groups, and observations—are really the foundational techniques of data collection. They are far and away the three techniques most frequently used separately, in conjunction with one another, and even sometimes in mixed methods qualitative/quantitative studies. Document review, either as a form of content analysis or separately, however, is an important addition to the qualitative researcher’s toolkit and should not be overlooked (figure 10.1). Although it is rare for a qualitative researcher to make document review their primary or sole form of data collection, including documents in the research design can help expand the reach and the reliability of a study. Document review can take many forms, from historical and archival research, in which the researcher pieces together a narrative of the past by finding and analyzing a variety of “documents” and records (including photographs and physical artifacts), to analyses of contemporary media content, as in the case of compiling and coding blog posts or other online commentaries, and content analysis that identifies and describes communicative aspects of media or documents.

In addition to these four major techniques, there are a host of emerging and incidental data collection techniques, from photo elicitation or photo voice, in which respondents are asked to comment upon a photograph or image (particularly useful as a supplement to interviews when the respondents are hesitant or unable to answer direct questions), to autoethnographies, in which the researcher uses his own position and life to increase our understanding about a phenomenon and its historical and social context.

Taken together, these techniques provide a wide range of practices and tools with which to discover the world. They are particularly suited to addressing the questions that qualitative researchers ask—questions about how things happen and why people act the way they do, given particular social contexts and shared meanings about the world (chapter 4).

Triangulation and Mixed Methods

Because the researcher plays such a large and nonneutral role in qualitative research, one that requires constant reflectivity and awareness (chapter 6), there is a constant need to reassure her audience that the results she finds are reliable. Quantitative researchers can point to any number of measures of statistical significance to reassure their audiences, but qualitative researchers do not have math to hide behind. And she will also want to reassure herself that what she is hearing in her interviews or observing in the field is a true reflection of what is going on (or as “true” as possible, given the problem that the world is as large and varied as the elephant; see chapter 3). For those reasons, it is common for researchers to employ more than one data collection technique or to include multiple and comparative populations, settings, and samples in the research design (chapter 2). A single set of interviews or initial comparison of focus groups might be conceived as a “pilot study” from which to launch the actual study. Undergraduate students working on a research project might be advised to think about their projects in this way as well. You are simply not going to have enough time or resources as an undergraduate to construct and complete a successful qualitative research project, but you may be able to tackle a pilot study. Graduate students also need to think about the amount of time and resources they have for completing a full study. Masters-level students, or students who have one year or less in which to complete a program, should probably consider their study as an initial exploratory pilot. PhD candidates might have the time and resources to devote to the type of triangulated, multifaceted research design called for by the research question.

We call the use of multiple qualitative methods of data collection and the inclusion of multiple and comparative populations and settings “triangulation.” Using different data collection methods allows us to check the consistency of our findings. For example, a study of the vaccine hesitant might include a set of interviews with vaccine-hesitant people and a focus group of the same and a content analysis of online comments about a vaccine mandate. By employing all three methods, we can be more confident of our interpretations from the interviews alone (especially if we are hearing the same thing throughout; if we are not, then this is a good sign that we need to push a little further to find out what is really going on). [3] Methodological triangulation is an important tool for increasing the reliability of our findings and the overall success of our research.

Methodological triangulation should not be confused with mixed methods techniques, which refer instead to the combining of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Mixed methods studies can increase reliability, but that is not their primary purpose. Mixed methods address multiple research questions, both the “how many” and “why” kind, or the causal and explanatory kind. Mixed methods will be discussed in more detail in chapter 15.

Let us return to the three examples of qualitative research described in chapter 1: Cory Abramson’s study of aging ( The End Game) , Jennifer Pierce’s study of lawyers and discrimination ( Racing for Innocence ), and my own study of liberal arts college students ( Amplified Advantage ). Each of these studies uses triangulation.

Abramson’s book is primarily based on three years of observations in four distinct neighborhoods. He chose the neighborhoods in such a way to maximize his ability to make comparisons: two were primarily middle class and two were primarily poor; further, within each set, one was predominantly White, while the other was either racially diverse or primarily African American. In each neighborhood, he was present in senior centers, doctors’ offices, public transportation, and other public spots where the elderly congregated. [4] The observations are the core of the book, and they are richly written and described in very moving passages. But it wasn’t enough for him to watch the seniors. He also engaged with them in casual conversation. That, too, is part of fieldwork. He sometimes even helped them make it to the doctor’s office or get around town. Going beyond these interactions, he also interviewed sixty seniors, an equal amount from each of the four neighborhoods. It was in the interviews that he could ask more detailed questions about their lives, what they thought about aging, what it meant to them to be considered old, and what their hopes and frustrations were. He could see that those living in the poor neighborhoods had a more difficult time accessing care and resources than those living in the more affluent neighborhoods, but he couldn’t know how the seniors understood these difficulties without interviewing them. Both forms of data collection supported each other and helped make the study richer and more insightful. Interviews alone would have failed to demonstrate the very real differences he observed (and that some seniors would not even have known about). This is the value of methodological triangulation.

Pierce’s book relies on two separate forms of data collection—interviews with lawyers at a firm that has experienced a history of racial discrimination and content analyses of news stories and popular films that screened during the same years of the alleged racial discrimination. I’ve used this book when teaching methods and have often found students struggle with understanding why these two forms of data collection were used. I think this is because we don’t teach students to appreciate or recognize “popular films” as a legitimate form of data. But what Pierce does is interesting and insightful in the best tradition of qualitative research. Here is a description of the content analyses from a review of her book:

In the chapter on the news media, Professor Pierce uses content analysis to argue that the media not only helped shape the meaning of affirmative action, but also helped create white males as a class of victims. The overall narrative that emerged from these media accounts was one of white male innocence and victimization. She also maintains that this narrative was used to support “neoconservative and neoliberal political agendas” (p. 21). The focus of these articles tended to be that affirmative action hurt white working-class and middle-class men particularly during the recession in the 1980s (despite statistical evidence that people of color were hurt far more than white males by the recession). In these stories fairness and innocence were seen in purely individual terms. Although there were stories that supported affirmative action and developed a broader understanding of fairness, the total number of stories slanted against affirmative action from 1990 to 1999. During that time period negative stories always outnumbered those supporting the policy, usually by a ratio of 3:1 or 3:2. Headlines, the presentation of polling data, and an emphasis in stories on racial division, Pierce argues, reinforced the story of white male victimization. Interestingly, the news media did very few stories on gender and affirmative action. The chapter on the film industry from 1989 to 1999 reinforces Pierce’s argument and adds another layer to her interpretation of affirmative action during this time period. She sampled almost 60 Hollywood films with receipts ranging from four million to 184 million dollars. In this chapter she argues that the dominant theme of these films was racial progress and the redemption of white Americans from past racism. These movies usually portrayed white, elite, and male experiences. People of color were background figures who supported the protagonist and “anointed” him as a savior (p. 45). Over the course of the film the protagonists move from “innocence to consciousness” concerning racism. The antagonists in these films most often were racist working-class white men. A Time to Kill , Mississippi Burning , Amistad , Ghosts of Mississippi , The Long Walk Home , To Kill a Mockingbird , and Dances with Wolves receive particular analysis in this chapter, and her examination of them leads Pierce to conclude that they infused a myth of racial progress into America’s cultural memory. White experiences of race are the focus and contemporary forms of racism are underplayed or omitted. Further, these films stereotype both working-class and elite white males, and underscore the neoliberal emphasis on individualism. ( Hrezo 2012 )

With that context in place, Pierce then turned to interviews with attorneys. She finds that White male attorneys often misremembered facts about the period in which the law firm was accused of racial discrimination and that they often portrayed their firms as having made substantial racial progress. This was in contrast to many of the lawyers of color and female lawyers who remembered the history differently and who saw continuing examples of racial (and gender) discrimination at the law firm. In most of the interviews, people talked about individuals, not structure (and these are attorneys, who really should know better!). By including both content analyses and interviews in her study, Pierce is better able to situate the attorney narratives and explain the larger context for the shared meanings of individual innocence and racial progress. Had this been a study only of films during this period, we would not know how actual people who lived during this period understood the decisions they made; had we had only the interviews, we would have missed the historical context and seen a lot of these interviewees as, well, not very nice people at all. Together, we have a study that is original, inventive, and insightful.

My own study of how class background affects the experiences and outcomes of students at small liberal arts colleges relies on mixed methods and triangulation. At the core of the book is an original survey of college students across the US. From analyses of this survey, I can present findings on “how many” questions and descriptive statistics comparing students of different social class backgrounds. For example, I know and can demonstrate that working-class college students are less likely to go to graduate school after college than upper-class college students are. I can even give you some estimates of the class gap. But what I can’t tell you from the survey is exactly why this is so or how it came to be so . For that, I employ interviews, focus groups, document reviews, and observations. Basically, I threw the kitchen sink at the “problem” of class reproduction and higher education (i.e., Does college reduce class inequalities or make them worse?). A review of historical documents provides a picture of the place of the small liberal arts college in the broader social and historical context. Who had access to these colleges and for what purpose have always been in contest, with some groups attempting to exclude others from opportunities for advancement. What it means to choose a small liberal arts college in the early twenty-first century is thus different for those whose parents are college professors, for those whose parents have a great deal of money, and for those who are the first in their family to attend college. I was able to get at these different understandings through interviews and focus groups and to further delineate the culture of these colleges by careful observation (and my own participation in them, as both former student and current professor). Putting together individual meanings, student dispositions, organizational culture, and historical context allowed me to present a story of how exactly colleges can both help advance first-generation, low-income, working-class college students and simultaneously amplify the preexisting advantages of their peers. Mixed methods addressed multiple research questions, while triangulation allowed for this deeper, more complex story to emerge.

In the next few chapters, we will explore each of the primary data collection techniques in much more detail. As we do so, think about how these techniques may be productively joined for more reliable and deeper studies of the social world.

Advanced Reading: Triangulation

Denzin ( 1978 ) identified four basic types of triangulation: data, investigator, theory, and methodological. Properly speaking, if we use the Denzin typology, the use of multiple methods of data collection and analysis to strengthen one’s study is really a form of methodological triangulation. It may be helpful to understand how this differs from the other types.

Data triangulation occurs when the researcher uses a variety of sources in a single study. Perhaps they are interviewing multiple samples of college students. Obviously, this overlaps with sample selection (see chapter 5). It is helpful for the researcher to understand that these multiple data sources add strength and reliability to the study. After all, it is not just “these students here” but also “those students over there” that are experiencing this phenomenon in a particular way.

Investigator triangulation occurs when different researchers or evaluators are part of the research team. Intercoding reliability is a form of investigator triangulation (or at least a way of leveraging the power of multiple researchers to raise the reliability of the study).

Theory triangulation is the use of multiple perspectives to interpret a single set of data, as in the case of competing theoretical paradigms (e.g., a human capital approach vs. a Bourdieusian multiple capital approach).

Methodological triangulation , as explained in this chapter, is the use of multiple methods to study a single phenomenon, issue, or problem.

Further Readings

Carter, Nancy, Denise Bryant-Lukosius, Alba DiCenso, Jennifer Blythe, Alan J. Neville. 2014. “The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research.” Oncology Nursing Forum 41(5):545–547. Discusses the four types of triangulation identified by Denzin with an example of the use of focus groups and in-depth individuals.

Mathison, Sandra. 1988. “Why Triangulate?” Educational Researcher 17(2):13–17. Presents three particular ways of assessing validity through the use of triangulated data collection: convergence, inconsistency, and contradiction.

Tracy, Sarah J. 2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight ‘Big-Tent’ Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16(10):837–851. Focuses on triangulation as a criterion for conducting valid qualitative research.

• Marshall and Rossman ( 2016 ) state this slightly differently. They list four primary methods for gathering information: (1) participating in the setting, (2) observing directly, (3) interviewing in depth, and (4) analyzing documents and material culture (141). An astute reader will note that I have collapsed participation into observation and that I have distinguished focus groups from interviews. I suspect that this distinction marks me as more of an interview-based researcher, while Marshall and Rossman prioritize ethnographic approaches. The main point of this footnote is to show you, the reader, that there is no single agreed-upon number of approaches to collecting qualitative data. ↵
• See “ Advanced Reading: Triangulation ” at end of this chapter. ↵
• We can also think about triangulating the sources, as when we include comparison groups in our sample (e.g., if we include those receiving vaccines, we might find out a bit more about where the real differences lie between them and the vaccine hesitant); triangulating the analysts (building a research team so that your interpretations can be checked against those of others on the team); and even triangulating the theoretical perspective (as when we “try on,” say, different conceptualizations of social capital in our analyses). ↵

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 22 March 2008

Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups

• P. Gill 1 ,
• K. Stewart 2 ,
• E. Treasure 3 &
• B. Chadwick 4  

British Dental Journal volume  204 ,  pages 291–295 ( 2008 ) Cite this article

1.68m Accesses

1029 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

Interviews and focus groups are the most common methods of data collection used in qualitative healthcare research

Interviews can be used to explore the views, experiences, beliefs and motivations of individual participants

Focus group use group dynamics to generate qualitative data

Qualitative research in dentistry

Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research

Analysing and presenting qualitative data

This paper explores the most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. The paper examines each method in detail, focusing on how they work in practice, when their use is appropriate and what they can offer dentistry. Examples of empirical studies that have used interviews or focus groups are also provided.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

SpatialData: an open and universal data framework for spatial omics

Luca Marconato, Giovanni Palla, … Oliver Stegle

A cross-verified database of notable people, 3500BC-2018AD

Morgane Laouenan, Palaash Bhargava, … Etienne Wasmer

An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success

Reed T. Sutton, David Pincock, … Karen I. Kroeker

Introduction

Having explored the nature and purpose of qualitative research in the previous paper, this paper explores methods of data collection used in qualitative research. There are a variety of methods of data collection in qualitative research, including observations, textual or visual analysis (eg from books or videos) and interviews (individual or group). 1 However, the most common methods used, particularly in healthcare research, are interviews and focus groups. 2 , 3

The purpose of this paper is to explore these two methods in more detail, in particular how they work in practice, the purpose of each, when their use is appropriate and what they can offer dental research.

Qualitative research interviews

There are three fundamental types of research interviews: structured, semi-structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are, essentially, verbally administered questionnaires, in which a list of predetermined questions are asked, with little or no variation and with no scope for follow-up questions to responses that warrant further elaboration. Consequently, they are relatively quick and easy to administer and may be of particular use if clarification of certain questions are required or if there are likely to be literacy or numeracy problems with the respondents. However, by their very nature, they only allow for limited participant responses and are, therefore, of little use if 'depth' is required.

Conversely, unstructured interviews do not reflect any preconceived theories or ideas and are performed with little or no organisation. 4 Such an interview may simply start with an opening question such as 'Can you tell me about your experience of visiting the dentist?' and will then progress based, primarily, upon the initial response. Unstructured interviews are usually very time-consuming (often lasting several hours) and can be difficult to manage, and to participate in, as the lack of predetermined interview questions provides little guidance on what to talk about (which many participants find confusing and unhelpful). Their use is, therefore, generally only considered where significant 'depth' is required, or where virtually nothing is known about the subject area (or a different perspective of a known subject area is required).

Semi-structured interviews consist of several key questions that help to define the areas to be explored, but also allows the interviewer or interviewee to diverge in order to pursue an idea or response in more detail. 2 This interview format is used most frequently in healthcare, as it provides participants with some guidance on what to talk about, which many find helpful. The flexibility of this approach, particularly compared to structured interviews, also allows for the discovery or elaboration of information that is important to participants but may not have previously been thought of as pertinent by the research team.

For example, in a recent dental public heath study, 5 school children in Cardiff, UK were interviewed about their food choices and preferences. A key finding that emerged from semi-structured interviews, which was not previously thought to be as highly influential as the data subsequently confirmed, was the significance of peer-pressure in influencing children's food choices and preferences. This finding was also established primarily through follow-up questioning (eg probing interesting responses with follow-up questions, such as 'Can you tell me a bit more about that?') and, therefore, may not have emerged in the same way, if at all, if asked as a predetermined question.

The purpose of research interviews

The purpose of the research interview is to explore the views, experiences, beliefs and/or motivations of individuals on specific matters (eg factors that influence their attendance at the dentist). Qualitative methods, such as interviews, are believed to provide a 'deeper' understanding of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative methods, such as questionnaires. 1 Interviews are, therefore, most appropriate where little is already known about the study phenomenon or where detailed insights are required from individual participants. They are also particularly appropriate for exploring sensitive topics, where participants may not want to talk about such issues in a group environment.

Examples of dental studies that have collected data using interviews are 'Examining the psychosocial process involved in regular dental attendance' 6 and 'Exploring factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies'. 7 Gibson et al . 6 provided an improved understanding of factors that influenced people's regular attendance with their dentist. The study by Kay and Blinkhorn 7 provided a detailed insight into factors that influenced GDPs' decision making in relation to treatment choices. The study found that dentists' clinical decisions about treatments were not necessarily related to pathology or treatment options, as was perhaps initially thought, but also involved discussions with patients, patients' values and dentists' feelings of self esteem and conscience.

There are many similarities between clinical encounters and research interviews, in that both employ similar interpersonal skills, such as questioning, conversing and listening. However, there are also some fundamental differences between the two, such as the purpose of the encounter, reasons for participating, roles of the people involved and how the interview is conducted and recorded. 8

The primary purpose of clinical encounters is for the dentist to ask the patient questions in order to acquire sufficient information to inform decision making and treatment options. However, the constraints of most consultations are such that any open-ended questioning needs to be brought to a conclusion within a fairly short time. 2 In contrast, the fundamental purpose of the research interview is to listen attentively to what respondents have to say, in order to acquire more knowledge about the study topic. 9 Unlike the clinical encounter, it is not to intentionally offer any form of help or advice, which many researchers have neither the training nor the time for. Research interviewing therefore requires a different approach and a different range of skills.

The interview

When designing an interview schedule it is imperative to ask questions that are likely to yield as much information about the study phenomenon as possible and also be able to address the aims and objectives of the research. In a qualitative interview, good questions should be open-ended (ie, require more than a yes/no answer), neutral, sensitive and understandable. 2 It is usually best to start with questions that participants can answer easily and then proceed to more difficult or sensitive topics. 2 This can help put respondents at ease, build up confidence and rapport and often generates rich data that subsequently develops the interview further.

As in any research, it is often wise to first pilot the interview schedule on several respondents prior to data collection proper. 8 This allows the research team to establish if the schedule is clear, understandable and capable of answering the research questions, and if, therefore, any changes to the interview schedule are required.

The length of interviews varies depending on the topic, researcher and participant. However, on average, healthcare interviews last 20-60 minutes. Interviews can be performed on a one-off or, if change over time is of interest, repeated basis, 4 for example exploring the psychosocial impact of oral trauma on participants and their subsequent experiences of cosmetic dental surgery.

Developing the interview

Before an interview takes place, respondents should be informed about the study details and given assurance about ethical principles, such as anonymity and confidentiality. 2 This gives respondents some idea of what to expect from the interview, increases the likelihood of honesty and is also a fundamental aspect of the informed consent process.

Wherever possible, interviews should be conducted in areas free from distractions and at times and locations that are most suitable for participants. For many this may be at their own home in the evenings. Whilst researchers may have less control over the home environment, familiarity may help the respondent to relax and result in a more productive interview. 9 Establishing rapport with participants prior to the interview is also important as this can also have a positive effect on the subsequent development of the interview.

When conducting the actual interview it is prudent for the interviewer to familiarise themselves with the interview schedule, so that the process appears more natural and less rehearsed. However, to ensure that the interview is as productive as possible, researchers must possess a repertoire of skills and techniques to ensure that comprehensive and representative data are collected during the interview. 10 One of the most important skills is the ability to listen attentively to what is being said, so that participants are able to recount their experiences as fully as possible, without unnecessary interruptions.

Other important skills include adopting open and emotionally neutral body language, nodding, smiling, looking interested and making encouraging noises (eg, 'Mmmm') during the interview. 2 The strategic use of silence, if used appropriately, can also be highly effective at getting respondents to contemplate their responses, talk more, elaborate or clarify particular issues. Other techniques that can be used to develop the interview further include reflecting on remarks made by participants (eg, 'Pain?') and probing remarks ('When you said you were afraid of going to the dentist what did you mean?'). 9 Where appropriate, it is also wise to seek clarification from respondents if it is unclear what they mean. The use of 'leading' or 'loaded' questions that may unduly influence responses should always be avoided (eg, 'So you think dental surgery waiting rooms are frightening?' rather than 'How do you find the waiting room at the dentists?').

At the end of the interview it is important to thank participants for their time and ask them if there is anything they would like to add. This gives respondents an opportunity to deal with issues that they have thought about, or think are important but have not been dealt with by the interviewer. 9 This can often lead to the discovery of new, unanticipated information. Respondents should also be debriefed about the study after the interview has finished.

All interviews should be tape recorded and transcribed verbatim afterwards, as this protects against bias and provides a permanent record of what was and was not said. 8 It is often also helpful to make 'field notes' during and immediately after each interview about observations, thoughts and ideas about the interview, as this can help in data analysis process. 4 , 8

Focus groups

Focus groups share many common features with less structured interviews, but there is more to them than merely collecting similar data from many participants at once. A focus group is a group discussion on a particular topic organised for research purposes. This discussion is guided, monitored and recorded by a researcher (sometimes called a moderator or facilitator). 11 , 12

Focus groups were first used as a research method in market research, originating in the 1940s in the work of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University. Eventually the success of focus groups as a marketing tool in the private sector resulted in its use in public sector marketing, such as the assessment of the impact of health education campaigns. 13 However, focus group techniques, as used in public and private sectors, have diverged over time. Therefore, in this paper, we seek to describe focus groups as they are used in academic research.

When focus groups are used

Focus groups are used for generating information on collective views, and the meanings that lie behind those views. They are also useful in generating a rich understanding of participants' experiences and beliefs. 12 Suggested criteria for using focus groups include: 13

As a standalone method, for research relating to group norms, meanings and processes

In a multi-method design, to explore a topic or collect group language or narratives to be used in later stages

To clarify, extend, qualify or challenge data collected through other methods

To feedback results to research participants.

Morgan 12 suggests that focus groups should be avoided according to the following criteria:

If listening to participants' views generates expectations for the outcome of the research that can not be fulfilled

If participants are uneasy with each other, and will therefore not discuss their feelings and opinions openly

If the topic of interest to the researcher is not a topic the participants can or wish to discuss

If statistical data is required. Focus groups give depth and insight, but cannot produce useful numerical results.

Conducting focus groups: group composition and size

The composition of a focus group needs great care to get the best quality of discussion. There is no 'best' solution to group composition, and group mix will always impact on the data, according to things such as the mix of ages, sexes and social professional statuses of the participants. What is important is that the researcher gives due consideration to the impact of group mix (eg, how the group may interact with each other) before the focus group proceeds. 14

Interaction is key to a successful focus group. Sometimes this means a pre-existing group interacts best for research purposes, and sometimes stranger groups. Pre-existing groups may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and enjoy a comfort and familiarity which facilitates discussion or the ability to challenge each other comfortably. In health settings, pre-existing groups can overcome issues relating to disclosure of potentially stigmatising status which people may find uncomfortable in stranger groups (conversely there may be situations where disclosure is more comfortable in stranger groups). In other research projects it may be decided that stranger groups will be able to speak more freely without fear of repercussion, and challenges to other participants may be more challenging and probing, leading to richer data. 13

Group size is an important consideration in focus group research. Stewart and Shamdasani 14 suggest that it is better to slightly over-recruit for a focus group and potentially manage a slightly larger group, than under-recruit and risk having to cancel the session or having an unsatisfactory discussion. They advise that each group will probably have two non-attenders. The optimum size for a focus group is six to eight participants (excluding researchers), but focus groups can work successfully with as few as three and as many as 14 participants. Small groups risk limited discussion occurring, while large groups can be chaotic, hard to manage for the moderator and frustrating for participants who feel they get insufficient opportunities to speak. 13

Preparing an interview schedule

Like research interviews, the interview schedule for focus groups is often no more structured than a loose schedule of topics to be discussed. However, in preparing an interview schedule for focus groups, Stewart and Shamdasani 14 suggest two general principles:

Questions should move from general to more specific questions

Question order should be relative to importance of issues in the research agenda.

There can, however, be some conflict between these two principles, and trade offs are often needed, although often discussions will take on a life of their own, which will influence or determine the order in which issues are covered. Usually, less than a dozen predetermined questions are needed and, as with research interviews, the researcher will also probe and expand on issues according to the discussion.

Moderating a focus group looks easy when done well, but requires a complex set of skills, which are related to the following principles: 15

Participants have valuable views and the ability to respond actively, positively and respectfully. Such an approach is not simply a courtesy, but will encourage fruitful discussions

Moderating without participating: a moderator must guide a discussion rather than join in with it. Expressing one's own views tends to give participants cues as to what to say (introducing bias), rather than the confidence to be open and honest about their own views

Be prepared for views that may be unpalatably critical of a topic which may be important to you

It is important to recognise that researchers' individual characteristics mean that no one person will always be suitable to moderate any kind of group. Sometimes the characteristics that suit a moderator for one group will inhibit discussion in another

Be yourself. If the moderator is comfortable and natural, participants will feel relaxed.

The moderator should facilitate group discussion, keeping it focussed without leading it. They should also be able to prevent the discussion being dominated by one member (for example, by emphasising at the outset the importance of hearing a range of views), ensure that all participants have ample opportunity to contribute, allow differences of opinions to be discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants. 13

Other relevant factors

The venue for a focus group is important and should, ideally, be accessible, comfortable, private, quiet and free from distractions. 13 However, while a central location, such as the participants' workplace or school, may encourage attendance, the venue may affect participants' behaviour. For example, in a school setting, pupils may behave like pupils, and in clinical settings, participants may be affected by any anxieties that affect them when they attend in a patient role.

Focus groups are usually recorded, often observed (by a researcher other than the moderator, whose role is to observe the interaction of the group to enhance analysis) and sometimes videotaped. At the start of a focus group, a moderator should acknowledge the presence of the audio recording equipment, assure participants of confidentiality and give people the opportunity to withdraw if they are uncomfortable with being taped. 14

A good quality multi-directional external microphone is recommended for the recording of focus groups, as internal microphones are rarely good enough to cope with the variation in volume of different speakers. 13 If observers are present, they should be introduced to participants as someone who is just there to observe, and sit away from the discussion. 14 Videotaping will require more than one camera to capture the whole group, as well as additional operational personnel in the room. This is, therefore, very obtrusive, which can affect the spontaneity of the group and in a focus group does not usually yield enough additional information that could not be captured by an observer to make videotaping worthwhile. 15

The systematic analysis of focus group transcripts is crucial. However, the transcription of focus groups is more complex and time consuming than in one-to-one interviews, and each hour of audio can take up to eight hours to transcribe and generate approximately 100 pages of text. Recordings should be transcribed verbatim and also speakers should be identified in a way that makes it possible to follow the contributions of each individual. Sometimes observational notes also need to be described in the transcripts in order for them to make sense.

The analysis of qualitative data is explored in the final paper of this series. However, it is important to note that the analysis of focus group data is different from other qualitative data because of their interactive nature, and this needs to be taken into consideration during analysis. The importance of the context of other speakers is essential to the understanding of individual contributions. 13 For example, in a group situation, participants will often challenge each other and justify their remarks because of the group setting, in a way that perhaps they would not in a one-to-one interview. The analysis of focus group data must therefore take account of the group dynamics that have generated remarks.

Focus groups in dental research

Focus groups are used increasingly in dental research, on a diverse range of topics, 16 illuminating a number of areas relating to patients, dental services and the dental profession. Addressing a special needs population difficult to access and sample through quantitative measures, Robinson et al . 17 used focus groups to investigate the oral health-related attitudes of drug users, exploring the priorities, understandings and barriers to care they encounter. Newton et al . 18 used focus groups to explore barriers to services among minority ethnic groups, highlighting for the first time differences between minority ethnic groups. Demonstrating the use of the method with professional groups as subjects in dental research, Gussy et al . 19 explored the barriers to and possible strategies for developing a shared approach in prevention of caries among pre-schoolers. This mixed method study was very important as the qualitative element was able to explain why the clinical trial failed, and this understanding may help researchers improve on the quantitative aspect of future studies, as well as making a valuable academic contribution in its own right.

Interviews and focus groups remain the most common methods of data collection in qualitative research, and are now being used with increasing frequency in dental research, particularly to access areas not amendable to quantitative methods and/or where depth, insight and understanding of particular phenomena are required. The examples of dental studies that have employed these methods also help to demonstrate the range of research contexts to which interview and focus group research can make a useful contribution. The continued employment of these methods can further strengthen many areas of dentally related work.

Silverman D . Doing qualitative research . London: Sage Publications, 2000.

Google Scholar  

Britten N . Qualitative interviews in healthcare. In Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative research in health care . 2nd ed. pp 11–19. London: BMJ Books, 1999.

Legard R, Keegan J, Ward K . In-depth interviews. In Ritchie J, Lewis J (eds) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers . pp 139–169. London: Sage Publications, 2003.

May K M . Interview techniques in qualitative research: concerns and challenges. In Morse J M (ed) Qualitative nursing research . pp 187–201. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1991.

Stewart K, Gill P, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Understanding about food among 6-11 year olds in South Wales. Food Culture Society 2006; 9 : 317–333.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gibson B, Drenna J, Hanna S, Freeman R . An exploratory qualitative study examining the social and psychological processes involved in regular dental attendance. J Public Health Dent 2000; 60 : 5–11.

Kay E J, Blinkhorn A S . A qualitative investigation of factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies. Br Dent J 1996; 180 : 171–176.

Pontin D . Interviews. In Cormack D F S (ed) The research process in nursing . 4th ed. pp 289–298. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: principles in practice . 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1995.

Kitzinger J . The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn 1994; 16 : 103–121.

Morgan D L . The focus group guide book . London: Sage Publications, 1998.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K . Focus groups in social research . London: Sage Publications, 2001.

Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M . Focus groups. Theory and practice . London: Sage Publications, 1990.

Krueger R A . Moderating focus groups . London: Sage Publications, 1998.

Chestnutt I G, Robson K F. Focus groups – what are they? Dent Update 2002; 28 : 189–192.

Robinson P G, Acquah S, Gibson B . Drug users: oral health related attitudes and behaviours. Br Dent J 2005; 198 : 219–224.

Newton J T, Thorogood N, Bhavnani V, Pitt J, Gibbons D E, Gelbier S . Barriers to the use of dental services by individuals from minority ethnic communities living in the United Kingdom: findings from focus groups. Primary Dent Care 2001; 8 : 157–161.

Gussy M G, Waters E, Kilpatrick M . A qualitative study exploring barriers to a model of shared care for pre-school children's oral health. Br Dent J 2006; 201 : 165–170.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Health, Sport and Science, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL,

Research Fellow, Academic Unit of Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2AA,

Dean and Professor of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, Dental Health and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY,

E. Treasure

Professor of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dental Health and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY,

B. Chadwick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Additional information

Refereed paper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. et al. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 204 , 291–295 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Download citation

Published : 22 March 2008

Issue Date : 22 March 2008

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192

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

This article is cited by

Imprisonment for south ethiopian people living with hiv presents a double health burden: lived experiences of prisoners.

• Terefe Gone Fuge
• George Tsourtos
• Emma R Miller

BMC Health Services Research (2024)

Employees’ experiences of a large-scale implementation in a public care setting: a novel mixed-method approach to content analysis

• My Säfström
• Ulrika Löfkvist

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Heteronormative biases and distinctive experiences with prostate cancer among men who have sex with men: a qualitative focus group study

• Evan Panken
• Noah Frydenlund
• Channa Amarasekera

BMC Urology (2024)

The experience of the irreligious conversion: analysis of the spiritual transition toward skepticism from traditional religions in young adults residing in Santiago, Chile

• Consuelo Calderón Villarreal

SN Social Sciences (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Table of Contents

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on exploring and understanding people’s beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. It seeks to answer research questions through the examination of subjective data, such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and textual analysis.

Qualitative research aims to uncover the meaning and significance of social phenomena, and it typically involves a more flexible and iterative approach to data collection and analysis compared to quantitative research. Qualitative research is often used in fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative Research Methods are as follows:

One-to-One Interview

This method involves conducting an interview with a single participant to gain a detailed understanding of their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. One-to-one interviews can be conducted in-person, over the phone, or through video conferencing. The interviewer typically uses open-ended questions to encourage the participant to share their thoughts and feelings. One-to-one interviews are useful for gaining detailed insights into individual experiences.

Focus Groups

This method involves bringing together a group of people to discuss a specific topic in a structured setting. The focus group is led by a moderator who guides the discussion and encourages participants to share their thoughts and opinions. Focus groups are useful for generating ideas and insights, exploring social norms and attitudes, and understanding group dynamics.

Ethnographic Studies

This method involves immersing oneself in a culture or community to gain a deep understanding of its norms, beliefs, and practices. Ethnographic studies typically involve long-term fieldwork and observation, as well as interviews and document analysis. Ethnographic studies are useful for understanding the cultural context of social phenomena and for gaining a holistic understanding of complex social processes.

Text Analysis

This method involves analyzing written or spoken language to identify patterns and themes. Text analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative text analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Text analysis is useful for understanding media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.

This method involves an in-depth examination of a single person, group, or event to gain an understanding of complex phenomena. Case studies typically involve a combination of data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case. Case studies are useful for exploring unique or rare cases, and for generating hypotheses for further research.

Process of Observation

This method involves systematically observing and recording behaviors and interactions in natural settings. The observer may take notes, use audio or video recordings, or use other methods to document what they see. Process of observation is useful for understanding social interactions, cultural practices, and the context in which behaviors occur.

Record Keeping

This method involves keeping detailed records of observations, interviews, and other data collected during the research process. Record keeping is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data, and for providing a basis for analysis and interpretation.

This method involves collecting data from a large sample of participants through a structured questionnaire. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, through mail, or online. Surveys are useful for collecting data on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and for identifying patterns and trends in a population.

Qualitative data analysis is a process of turning unstructured data into meaningful insights. It involves extracting and organizing information from sources like interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The goal is to understand people’s attitudes, behaviors, and motivations

Qualitative Research Analysis Methods

Qualitative Research analysis methods involve a systematic approach to interpreting and making sense of the data collected in qualitative research. Here are some common qualitative data analysis methods:

Thematic Analysis

This method involves identifying patterns or themes in the data that are relevant to the research question. The researcher reviews the data, identifies keywords or phrases, and groups them into categories or themes. Thematic analysis is useful for identifying patterns across multiple data sources and for generating new insights into the research topic.

Content Analysis

This method involves analyzing the content of written or spoken language to identify key themes or concepts. Content analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative content analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Content analysis is useful for identifying patterns in media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.

Discourse Analysis

This method involves analyzing language to understand how it constructs meaning and shapes social interactions. Discourse analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is useful for understanding how language shapes social interactions, cultural norms, and power relationships.

Grounded Theory Analysis

This method involves developing a theory or explanation based on the data collected. Grounded theory analysis starts with the data and uses an iterative process of coding and analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data. The theory or explanation that emerges is grounded in the data, rather than preconceived hypotheses. Grounded theory analysis is useful for understanding complex social phenomena and for generating new theoretical insights.

Narrative Analysis

This method involves analyzing the stories or narratives that participants share to gain insights into their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. Narrative analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as structural analysis, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis. Narrative analysis is useful for understanding how individuals construct their identities, make sense of their experiences, and communicate their values and beliefs.

Phenomenological Analysis

This method involves analyzing how individuals make sense of their experiences and the meanings they attach to them. Phenomenological analysis typically involves in-depth interviews with participants to explore their experiences in detail. Phenomenological analysis is useful for understanding subjective experiences and for developing a rich understanding of human consciousness.

Comparative Analysis

This method involves comparing and contrasting data across different cases or groups to identify similarities and differences. Comparative analysis can be used to identify patterns or themes that are common across multiple cases, as well as to identify unique or distinctive features of individual cases. Comparative analysis is useful for understanding how social phenomena vary across different contexts and groups.

Applications of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has many applications across different fields and industries. Here are some examples of how qualitative research is used:

• Market Research: Qualitative research is often used in market research to understand consumer attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with consumers to gather insights into their experiences and perceptions of products and services.
• Health Care: Qualitative research is used in health care to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
• Education: Qualitative research is used in education to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. Researchers conduct classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
• Social Work : Qualitative research is used in social work to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
• Anthropology : Qualitative research is used in anthropology to understand different cultures and societies. Researchers conduct ethnographic studies and observe and interview members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
• Psychology : Qualitative research is used in psychology to understand human behavior and mental processes. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
• Public Policy : Qualitative research is used in public policy to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.

How to Conduct Qualitative Research

Here are some general steps for conducting qualitative research:

• Identify your research question: Qualitative research starts with a research question or set of questions that you want to explore. This question should be focused and specific, but also broad enough to allow for exploration and discovery.
• Select your research design: There are different types of qualitative research designs, including ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. You should select a design that aligns with your research question and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
• Recruit participants: Once you have your research question and design, you need to recruit participants. The number of participants you need will depend on your research design and the scope of your research. You can recruit participants through advertisements, social media, or through personal networks.
• Collect data: There are different methods for collecting qualitative data, including interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. You should select the method or methods that align with your research design and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
• Analyze data: Once you have collected your data, you need to analyze it. This involves reviewing your data, identifying patterns and themes, and developing codes to organize your data. You can use different software programs to help you analyze your data, or you can do it manually.
• Interpret data: Once you have analyzed your data, you need to interpret it. This involves making sense of the patterns and themes you have identified, and developing insights and conclusions that answer your research question. You should be guided by your research question and use your data to support your conclusions.
• Communicate results: Once you have interpreted your data, you need to communicate your results. This can be done through academic papers, presentations, or reports. You should be clear and concise in your communication, and use examples and quotes from your data to support your findings.

Examples of Qualitative Research

Here are some real-time examples of qualitative research:

• Customer Feedback: A company may conduct qualitative research to understand the feedback and experiences of its customers. This may involve conducting focus groups or one-on-one interviews with customers to gather insights into their attitudes, behaviors, and preferences.
• Healthcare : A healthcare provider may conduct qualitative research to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
• Education : An educational institution may conduct qualitative research to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. This may involve conducting classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
• Social Work: A social worker may conduct qualitative research to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
• Anthropology : An anthropologist may conduct qualitative research to understand different cultures and societies. This may involve conducting ethnographic studies and observing and interviewing members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
• Psychology : A psychologist may conduct qualitative research to understand human behavior and mental processes. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
• Public Policy: A government agency or non-profit organization may conduct qualitative research to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. This may involve conducting focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.

Purpose of Qualitative Research

The purpose of qualitative research is to explore and understand the subjective experiences, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research aims to provide in-depth, descriptive information that can help researchers develop insights and theories about complex social phenomena.

Qualitative research can serve multiple purposes, including:

• Exploring new or emerging phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring new or emerging phenomena, such as new technologies or social trends. This type of research can help researchers develop a deeper understanding of these phenomena and identify potential areas for further study.
• Understanding complex social phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring complex social phenomena, such as cultural beliefs, social norms, or political processes. This type of research can help researchers develop a more nuanced understanding of these phenomena and identify factors that may influence them.
• Generating new theories or hypotheses: Qualitative research can be useful for generating new theories or hypotheses about social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data about individuals’ experiences and perspectives, researchers can develop insights that may challenge existing theories or lead to new lines of inquiry.
• Providing context for quantitative data: Qualitative research can be useful for providing context for quantitative data. By gathering qualitative data alongside quantitative data, researchers can develop a more complete understanding of complex social phenomena and identify potential explanations for quantitative findings.

When to use Qualitative Research

Here are some situations where qualitative research may be appropriate:

• Exploring a new area: If little is known about a particular topic, qualitative research can help to identify key issues, generate hypotheses, and develop new theories.
• Understanding complex phenomena: Qualitative research can be used to investigate complex social, cultural, or organizational phenomena that are difficult to measure quantitatively.
• Investigating subjective experiences: Qualitative research is particularly useful for investigating the subjective experiences of individuals or groups, such as their attitudes, beliefs, values, or emotions.
• Conducting formative research: Qualitative research can be used in the early stages of a research project to develop research questions, identify potential research participants, and refine research methods.
• Evaluating interventions or programs: Qualitative research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or programs by collecting data on participants’ experiences, attitudes, and behaviors.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is characterized by several key features, including:

• Focus on subjective experience: Qualitative research is concerned with understanding the subjective experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Researchers aim to explore the meanings that people attach to their experiences and to understand the social and cultural factors that shape these meanings.
• Use of open-ended questions: Qualitative research relies on open-ended questions that allow participants to provide detailed, in-depth responses. Researchers seek to elicit rich, descriptive data that can provide insights into participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Sampling-based on purpose and diversity: Qualitative research often involves purposive sampling, in which participants are selected based on specific criteria related to the research question. Researchers may also seek to include participants with diverse experiences and perspectives to capture a range of viewpoints.
• Data collection through multiple methods: Qualitative research typically involves the use of multiple data collection methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation. This allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data from multiple sources, which can provide a more complete picture of participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Inductive data analysis: Qualitative research relies on inductive data analysis, in which researchers develop theories and insights based on the data rather than testing pre-existing hypotheses. Researchers use coding and thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data and to develop theories and explanations based on these patterns.
• Emphasis on researcher reflexivity: Qualitative research recognizes the importance of the researcher’s role in shaping the research process and outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own biases and assumptions and to be transparent about their role in the research process.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research offers several advantages over other research methods, including:

• Depth and detail: Qualitative research allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data that provides a deeper understanding of complex social phenomena. Through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation, researchers can gather detailed information about participants’ experiences and perspectives that may be missed by other research methods.
• Flexibility : Qualitative research is a flexible approach that allows researchers to adapt their methods to the research question and context. Researchers can adjust their research methods in real-time to gather more information or explore unexpected findings.
• Contextual understanding: Qualitative research is well-suited to exploring the social and cultural context in which individuals or groups are situated. Researchers can gather information about cultural norms, social structures, and historical events that may influence participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Participant perspective : Qualitative research prioritizes the perspective of participants, allowing researchers to explore subjective experiences and understand the meanings that participants attach to their experiences.
• Theory development: Qualitative research can contribute to the development of new theories and insights about complex social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data and using inductive data analysis, researchers can develop new theories and explanations that may challenge existing understandings.
• Validity : Qualitative research can offer high validity by using multiple data collection methods, purposive and diverse sampling, and researcher reflexivity. This can help ensure that findings are credible and trustworthy.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research also has some limitations, including:

• Subjectivity : Qualitative research relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers, which can introduce bias into the research process. The researcher’s perspective, beliefs, and experiences can influence the way data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
• Limited generalizability: Qualitative research typically involves small, purposive samples that may not be representative of larger populations. This limits the generalizability of findings to other contexts or populations.
• Time-consuming: Qualitative research can be a time-consuming process, requiring significant resources for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
• Resource-intensive: Qualitative research may require more resources than other research methods, including specialized training for researchers, specialized software for data analysis, and transcription services.
• Limited reliability: Qualitative research may be less reliable than quantitative research, as it relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers. This can make it difficult to replicate findings or compare results across different studies.
• Ethics and confidentiality: Qualitative research involves collecting sensitive information from participants, which raises ethical concerns about confidentiality and informed consent. Researchers must take care to protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants and obtain informed consent.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Join thousands of product people at Insight Out Conf on April 11. Register free.

Insights hub solutions

Analyze data

Uncover deep customer insights with fast, powerful features, store insights, curate and manage insights in one searchable platform, scale research, unlock the potential of customer insights at enterprise scale.

Featured reads

Inspiration

Three things to look forward to at Insight Out

Tips and tricks

Make magic with your customer data in Dovetail

Four ways Dovetail helps Product Managers master continuous product discovery

Events and videos

© Dovetail Research Pty. Ltd.

• What is qualitative data?

Last updated

8 February 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

If you're wondering how qualitative data can help your business or innovative research efforts, keep reading. This is the ultimate guide to understanding what it is, how it works, and where to begin in collecting and analyzing data.

Analyze all your qualitative data

Analyze qualitative data faster and surface more actionable insights with Dovetail

For those who want to leverage the power of qualitative data, it's essential to understand the basic definitions first. 

When working with qualitative data, you're collecting and reviewing metrics that characterize and approximate. You source this data through observation, including interviews, surveys , and focus groups .

With responses and analytics in hand, you can categorize your findings in terms of feelings, attributes, or properties.

• Qualitative vs. quantitative data

You've likely heard of quantitative data. It's equally important to understand the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative datasets. While qualitative data measures feelings, behaviors, and properties, quantitative data are measures of values expressed as numbers.

Quantitative data answers questions like  how much  or  how often . Qualitative data will answer questions like  what type  or  why . Because qualitative data evaluate deeper sentiments, they're best at illustrating thought processes and behaviors behind the raw quantitative data.

• Importance of qualitative data

Qualitative data plays a more pivotal role in research and business today, especially because it helps unravel the characteristics and behavioral motivations. This data allows researchers and managers to "qualify" the environment or ecosystem they're studying. These analytics allow you to dive deeper into understanding people’s emotional or perceptual motivations. 

These metrics provide insights about target audiences and customer decision-making preferences in business. These datasets are great for solving problems and paving the way for innovations. 

Properly collecting and analyzing qualitative data will provide all the insights you need to prioritize your focus, address challenges, and resolve issues.

• Types of qualitative data

Since qualitative data is more of an exploratory process, it involves a more in-depth look at behaviors and concepts. And there are various types of qualitative data to explore. 

How you collect qualitative data and the channels you use will help you organize your results. Most data fits into one of three pillar categories: Nominal, binary, and ordinal. But all initiatives should answer a  primary research question.

Most qualitative data methods aim to:

Gain behavioral insights

Understand reasoning

Explore motivations

Identify emotional connections

• Qualitative data examples

It may be helpful to see qualitative data examples to better understand how to apply these collection and analysis methods to your model. Here are a few simplified samples to illustrate the value of these metrics in business and research.

Measuring characteristics

If you're studying a group of women, you might dive deeper to measure their characteristics. For example, you can collect qualitative data about the various hair colors or current jobs of the women in your study group. These qualitative metrics are great for developing marketing personas in business applications.

Measuring behaviors

Imagine you're studying a group of children in a room full of different toys. Measuring qualitative data might include observing which toys those children choose to play with first. Studying these behaviors will help you better understand the behavior behind what attracts a child to a particular type of toy, which is great for product innovation initiatives.

Measuring motivations

Consumers buying products or services will make their purchasing decisions according to personal motivations. Qualitative data surveys can help you study particular groups to evaluate why those consumers decided to buy. Knowing if your target audience is more motivated by price point, free shipping, or customer service will help you change how you engage them.

• Qualitative data collection methods

When you're ready to explore collecting and analyzing qualitative data, there are several collection methods to consider. Surveys and focus groups are great tools, but there are other methods, too. Each method is uniquely beneficial to specific metrics and research goals.

One-on-one interviews

One of the most common data collection methods, this qualitative research effort provides a more personal approach to determining sentiments and behaviors. Interviews with open-ended questions net the most in-depth responses and results.

Focus groups

Usually limited to ten or fewer participants, this method assigns a moderator to initiate a group discussion of ideas and sentiments. Members may all have something in common, but their responses will contribute to your qualitative datasets.

Case studies

These methods are ideal for collecting specific in-depth data using a combination of qualitative data sources to gain contextual knowledge about a specific real-world phenomenon. 

Longitudinal studies

This research approach is where you collect data from the same participants repeatedly. It's an observational model for dynamically comparing a captured group's results over days or even decades.

Record keeping

With this method, you can use existing sources of information to inspire new research. Much like visiting a library, you can study reference material to discover new qualitative data you should be studying.

Observation

This method involves a researcher immersing into a setting to watch and take notes of participants. Documentation might be in the form of note-taking, video observation, photography, or audio recording. 

• What is qualitative data analysis?

Once you've collected the qualitative data, it's time to evaluate and analyze it to produce inferences and actionable applications. There are no hard or fast rules for interpreting the data you collect. However, there are two primary approaches to understanding the qualitative data you've assembled for review. 

Deductive approach

If you've already outlined a structure as part of your data collection process, you're using a deductive approach to analyzing data. You use this analysis method when you already have an idea about the responses in the dataset. This approach is often easier to execute since you establish much of the groundwork during the data collection stage.

Inductive approach

This method involves analyzing qualitative data when you have no idea what the responses, results, or research phenomenon will be. It's more time-consuming to study data this way, but it can also be where researchers find revolutionary anomalies and lightbulb, a-ha solutions.

• How do you begin analyzing qualitative data?

To help you begin analyzing your recently collected qualitative data, you can loosely follow these basic steps to initiate your analysis.

Arrange your data into systems or categories into a software platform or analysis tool that allows you to easily visualize what you've collected.

Organize your qualitative data according to your research objectives using tables, spreadsheets, or visually appealing graphics.

Assigning proper codes for your data will help you compress vast libraries of information. Coding really translates to categories but takes it a step further by assigning properties and patterns. Codes will help you draw conclusions later.

Start validating your qualitative data to identify viable collection samples and eliminate any flawed or misconstrued datasets. Verify the accuracy of the collection methods and confirm the reliability and accuracy of the data you’ve collected.

Conclude your data with systematic presentation in a condensed report. In this step, you'll outline the methods you used in collection, the researchers involved, and the approach. You'll share the positives, negatives, and limitations of your study. Here, you draw inferences about your findings and offer suggestions for action or future research.

• Sharing qualitative analysis

When you're ready to share your qualitative analysis findings, you can choose a variety of formats to suit your presentation audience. These might include:

Digital or physical reports

Images or infographics

Audio or visual materials

Scanned historical documents

Observation dictations

Field notes

When explaining your analysis, it's best to share the purpose and parameters of your study. Then you can offer immediate results. Your qualitative analysis process will allow you to draw conclusions, apply judgment, and determine the next steps based on your unique scenario. 

• Advantages of qualitative data

There are inherent advantages to applying qualitative data collection and analysis methods to business and research projects. These are the three most pivotal benefits of tapping into regular qualitative data initiatives ongoing:

Get in-depth data beyond the numbers.

Understand participants or consumer behaviors more intuitively.

Discover rich data you can use and reuse well into the future.

• Disadvantages of qualitative data

A few disadvantages of qualitative data practices are worth noting. Before adopting these approaches, consider these potential setbacks:

Proper qualitative data collection and analysis is time-consuming.

The data can be hard to generalize, especially with fewer participants.

The researcher’s data analysis skills and the results are directly correlated.

• Qualitative analysis tools

As complex as qualitative data analysis can be, you don't have to go it alone or recreate the wheel. Many incredible tools and resources are available to simplify each step of the research process. 

Explore software solutions that streamline how you collect data, like online survey tools or customer questionnaires. Discover the design and data management software solutions out there intended to help you categorize and organize your data. 

Software packages for qualitative data analysis are your best friend when entering the analysis stage and looking for patterns and conclusions.

Start leveraging the many benefits of qualitative data analysis for your business or research project. Remember to reference this guide as you develop your studies and determine your methods.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 17 February 2024

Last updated: 19 November 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data

Brent Wolff, Frank Mahoney, Anna Leena Lohiniva, and Melissa Corkum

• Choosing When to Apply Qualitative Methods
• Commonly Used Qualitative Methods in Field Investigations
• Sampling and Recruitment for Qualitative Research
• Managing, Condensing, Displaying, and Interpreting Qualitative Data
• Coding and Analysis Requirements

Qualitative research methods are a key component of field epidemiologic investigations because they can provide insight into the perceptions, values, opinions, and community norms where investigations are being conducted ( 1,2 ). Open-ended inquiry methods, the mainstay of qualitative interview techniques, are essential in formative research for exploring contextual factors and rationales for risk behaviors that do not fit neatly into predefined categories. For example, during the 2014–2015 Ebola virus disease outbreaks in parts of West Africa, understanding the cultural implications of burial practices within different communities was crucial to designing and monitoring interventions for safe burials ( Box 10.1 ). In program evaluations, qualitative methods can assist the investigator in diagnosing what went right or wrong as part of a process evaluation or in troubleshooting why a program might not be working as well as expected. When designing an intervention, qualitative methods can be useful in exploring dimensions of acceptability to increase the chances of intervention acceptance and success. When performed in conjunction with quantitative studies, qualitative methods can help the investigator confirm, challenge, or deepen the validity of conclusions than either component might have yielded alone ( 1,2 ).

Qualitative research was used extensively in response to the Ebola virus disease outbreaks in parts of West Africa to understand burial practices and to design culturally appropriate strategies to ensure safe burials. Qualitative studies were also used to monitor key aspects of the response.

In October 2014, Liberia experienced an abrupt and steady decrease in case counts and deaths in contrast with predicted disease models of an increased case count. At the time, communities were resistant to entering Ebola treatment centers, raising the possibility that patients were not being referred for care and communities might be conducting occult burials.

To assess what was happening at the community level, the Liberian Emergency Operations Center recruited epidemiologists from the US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the African Union to investigate the problem.

Teams conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with community leaders, local funeral directors, and coffin makers and learned that communities were not conducting occult burials and that the overall number of burials was less than what they had experienced in previous years. Other key findings included the willingness of funeral directors to cooperate with disease response efforts, the need for training of funeral home workers, and considerable community resistance to cremation practices. These findings prompted the Emergency Operations Center to open a burial ground for Ebola decedents, support enhanced testing of burials in the private sector, and train private-sector funeral workers regarding safe burial practices.

Source: Melissa Corkum, personal communication.

Similar to quantitative approaches, qualitative research seeks answers to specific questions by using rigorous approaches to collecting and compiling information and producing findings that can be applicable beyond the study population. The fundamental difference in approaches lies in how they translate real-life complexities of initial observations into units of analysis. Data collected in qualitative studies typically are in the form of text or visual images, which provide rich sources of insight but also tend to be bulky and time-consuming to code and analyze. Practically speaking, qualitative study designs tend to favor small, purposively selected samples ideal for case studies or in-depth analysis ( 1 ). The combination of purposive sampling and open-ended question formats deprive qualitative study designs of the power to quantify and generalize conclusions, one of the key limitations of this approach.

Qualitative scientists might argue, however, that the generalizability and precision possible through probabilistic sampling and categorical outcomes are achieved at the cost of enhanced validity, nuance, and naturalism that less structured approaches offer ( 3 ). Open-ended techniques are particularly useful for understanding subjective meanings and motivations underlying behavior. They enable investigators to be equally adept at exploring factors observed and unobserved, intentions as well as actions, internal meanings as well as external consequences, options considered but not taken, and unmeasurable as well as measurable outcomes. These methods are important when the source of or solution to a public health problem is rooted in local perceptions rather than objectively measurable characteristics selected by outside observers ( 3 ). Ultimately, such approaches have the ability to go beyond quantifying questions of how much or how many to take on questions of how or why from the perspective and in the words of the study subjects themselves ( 1,2 ).

Another key advantage of qualitative methods for field investigations is their flexibility ( 4 ). Qualitative designs not only enable but also encourage flexibility in the content and flow of questions to challenge and probe for deeper meanings or follow new leads if they lead to deeper understanding of an issue (5). It is not uncommon for topic guides to be adjusted in the course of fieldwork to investigate emerging themes relevant to answering the original study question. As discussed herein, qualitative study designs allow flexibility in sample size to accommodate the need for more or fewer interviews among particular groups to determine the root cause of an issue (see the section on Sampling and Recruitment in Qualitative Research). In the context of field investigations, such methods can be extremely useful for investigating complex or fast-moving situations where the dimensions of analysis cannot be fully anticipated.

Ultimately, the decision whether to include qualitative research in a particular field investigation depends mainly on the nature of the research question itself. Certain types of research topics lend themselves more naturally to qualitative rather than other approaches ( Table 10.1 ). These include exploratory investigations when not enough is known about a problem to formulate a hypothesis or develop a fixed set of questions and answer codes. They include research questions where intentions matter as much as actions and “why?” or “why not?” questions matter as much as precise estimation of measured outcomes. Qualitative approaches also work well when contextual influences, subjective meanings, stigma, or strong social desirability biases lower faith in the validity of responses coming from a relatively impersonal survey questionnaire interview.

The availability of personnel with training and experience in qualitative interviewing or observation is critical for obtaining the best quality data but is not absolutely required for rapid assessment in field settings. Qualitative interviewing requires a broader set of skills than survey interviewing. It is not enough to follow a topic guide like a questionnaire, in order, from top to bottom. A qualitative interviewer must exercise judgment to decide when to probe and when to move on, when to encourage, challenge, or follow relevant leads even if they are not written in the topic guide. Ability to engage with informants, connect ideas during the interview, and think on one’s feet are common characteristics of good qualitative interviewers. By far the most important qualification in conducting qualitative fieldwork is a firm grasp of the research objectives; with this qualification, a member of the research team armed with curiosity and a topic guide can learn on the job with successful results.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews can be conducted with single participants (in-depth or individual key informants) or with groups (focus group discussions [FGDs] or key informant groups). These interviews follow a suggested topic guide rather than a fixed questionnaire format. Topic guides typically consist of a limited number ( 10– 15 ) of broad, open-ended questions followed by bulleted points to facilitate optional probing. The conversational back-and-forth nature of a semi-structured format puts the researcher and researched (the interview participants) on more equal footing than allowed by more structured formats. Respondents, the term used in the case of quantitative questionnaire interviews, become informants in the case of individual semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs) or participants in the case of FGDs. Freedom to probe beyond initial responses enables interviewers to actively engage with the interviewee to seek clarity, openness, and depth by challenging informants to reach below layers of self-presentation and social desirability. In this respect, interviewing is sometimes compared with peeling an onion, with the first version of events accessible to the public, including survey interviewers, and deeper inner layers accessible to those who invest the time and effort to build rapport and gain trust. (The theory of the active interview suggests that all interviews involve staged social encounters where the interviewee is constantly assessing interviewer intentions and adjusting his or her responses accordingly [ 1 ]. Consequently good rapport is important for any type of interview. Survey formats give interviewers less freedom to divert from the preset script of questions and formal probes.)

Individual In-Depth Interviews and Key-Informant Interviews

The most common forms of individual semi-structured interviews are IDIs and key informant interviews (KIIs). IDIs are conducted among informants typically selected for first-hand experience (e.g., service users, participants, survivors) relevant to the research topic. These are typically conducted as one-on-one face-to-face interviews (two-on-one if translators are needed) to maximize rapport-building and confidentiality. KIIs are similar to IDIs but focus on individual persons with special knowledge or influence (e.g., community leaders or health authorities) that give them broader perspective or deeper insight into the topic area ( Box 10.2 ). Whereas IDIs tend to focus on personal experiences, context, meaning, and implications for informants, KIIs tend to steer away from personal questions in favor of expert insights or community perspectives. IDIs enable flexible sampling strategies and represent the interviewing reference standard for confidentiality, rapport, richness, and contextual detail. However, IDIs are time-and labor-intensive to collect and analyze. Because confidentiality is not a concern in KIIs, these interviews might be conducted as individual or group interviews, as required for the topic area.

Focus Group Discussions and Group Key Informant Interviews

FGDs are semi-structured group interviews in which six to eight participants, homogeneous with respect to a shared experience, behavior, or demographic characteristic, are guided through a topic guide by a trained moderator ( 6 ). (Advice on ideal group interview size varies. The principle is to convene a group large enough to foster an open, lively discussion of the topic, and small enough to ensure all participants stay fully engaged in the process.) Over the course of discussion, the moderator is expected to pose questions, foster group participation, and probe for clarity and depth. Long a staple of market research, focus groups have become a widely used social science technique with broad applications in public health, and they are especially popular as a rapid method for assessing community norms and shared perceptions.

Focus groups have certain useful advantages during field investigations. They are highly adaptable, inexpensive to arrange and conduct, and often enjoyable for participants. Group dynamics effectively tap into collective knowledge and experience to serve as a proxy informant for the community as a whole. They are also capable of recreating a microcosm of social norms where social, moral, and emotional dimensions of topics are allowed to emerge. Skilled moderators can also exploit the tendency of small groups to seek consensus to bring out disagreements that the participants will work to resolve in a way that can lead to deeper understanding. There are also limitations on focus group methods. Lack of confidentiality during group interviews means they should not be used to explore personal experiences of a sensitive nature on ethical grounds. Participants may take it on themselves to volunteer such information, but moderators are generally encouraged to steer the conversation back to general observations to avoid putting pressure on other participants to disclose in a similar way. Similarly, FGDs are subject by design to strong social desirability biases. Qualitative study designs using focus groups sometimes add individual interviews precisely to enable participants to describe personal experiences or personal views that would be difficult or inappropriate to share in a group setting. Focus groups run the risk of producing broad but shallow analyses of issues if groups reach comfortable but superficial consensus around complex topics. This weakness can be countered by training moderators to probe effectively and challenge any consensus that sounds too simplistic or contradictory with prior knowledge. However, FGDs are surprisingly robust against the influence of strongly opinionated participants, highly adaptable, and well suited to application in study designs where systematic comparisons across different groups are called for.

Like FGDs, group KIIs rely on positive chemistry and the stimulating effects of group discussion but aim to gather expert knowledge or oversight on a particular topic rather than lived experience of embedded social actors. Group KIIs have no minimum size requirements and can involve as few as two or three participants.

Egypt’s National Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) program undertook qualitative research to gain an understanding of the contextual behaviors and motivations of healthcare workers in complying with IPC guidelines. The study was undertaken to guide the development of effective behavior change interventions in healthcare settings to improve IPC compliance.

Key informant interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in two governorates among cleaning staff, nursing staff, and physicians in different types of healthcare facilities. The findings highlighted social and cultural barriers to IPC compliance, enabling the IPC program to design responses. For example,

• Informants expressed difficulty in complying with IPC measures that forced them to act outside their normal roles in an ingrained hospital culture. Response: Role models and champions were introduced to help catalyze change.
• Informants described fatalistic attitudes that undermined energy and interest in modifying behavior. Response: Accordingly, interventions affirming institutional commitment to change while challenging fatalistic assumptions were developed.
• Informants did not perceive IPC as effective. Response: Trainings were amended to include scientific evidence justifying IPC practices.
• Informants perceived hygiene as something they took pride in and were judged on. Response: Public recognition of optimal IPC practice was introduced to tap into positive social desirability and professional pride in maintaining hygiene in the work environment.

Qualitative research identified sources of resistance to quality clinical practice in Egypt’s healthcare settings and culturally appropriate responses to overcome that resistance.

____________________ Source: Anna Leena Lohiniva, personal communication.

Visualization Methods

Visualization methods have been developed as a way to enhance participation and empower interviewees relative to researchers during group data collection ( 7 ). Visualization methods involve asking participants to engage in collective problem- solving of challenges expressed through group production of maps, diagrams, or other images. For example, participants from the community might be asked to sketch a map of their community and to highlight features of relevance to the research topic (e.g., access to health facilities or sites of risk concentrations). Body diagramming is another visualization tool in which community members are asked to depict how and where a health threat affects the human body as a way of understanding folk conceptions of health, disease, treatment, and prevention. Ensuing debate and dialogue regarding construction of images can be recorded and analyzed in conjunction with the visual image itself. Visualization exercises were initially designed to accommodate groups the size of entire communities, but they can work equally well with smaller groups corresponding to the size of FGDs or group KIIs.

Selecting a Sample of Study Participants

Fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research emerge most clearly in the practice of sampling and recruitment of study participants. Qualitative samples are typically small and purposive. In-depth interview informants are usually selected on the basis of unique characteristics or personal experiences that make them exemplary for the study, if not typical in other respects. Key informants are selected for their unique knowledge or influence in the study domain. Focus group mobilization often seeks participants who are typical with respect to others in the community having similar exposure or shared characteristics. Often, however, participants in qualitative studies are selected because they are exceptional rather than simply representative. Their value lies not in their generalizability but in their ability to generate insight into the key questions driving the study.

Determining Sample Size

Sample size determination for qualitative studies also follows a different logic than that used for probability sample surveys. For example, whereas some qualitative methods specify ideal ranges of participants that constitute a valid observation (e.g., focus groups), there are no rules on how many observations it takes to attain valid results. In theory, sample size in qualitative designs should be determined by the saturation principle , where interviews are conducted until additional interviews yield no additional insights into the topic of research ( 8 ). Practically speaking, designing a study with a range in number of interviews is advisable for providing a level of flexibility if additional interviews are needed to reach clear conclusions.

Recruiting Study Participants

Recruitment strategies for qualitative studies typically involve some degree of participant self-selection (e.g., advertising in public spaces for interested participants) and purposive selection (e.g., identification of key informants). Purposive selection in community settings often requires authorization from local authorities and assistance from local mobilizers before the informed consent process can begin. Clearly specifying eligibility criteria is crucial for minimizing the tendency of study mobilizers to apply their own filters regarding who reflects the community in the best light. In addition to formal eligibility criteria, character traits (e.g., articulate and interested in participating) and convenience (e.g., not too far away) are legitimate considerations for whom to include in the sample. Accommodations to personality and convenience help to ensure the small number of interviews in a typical qualitative design yields maximum value for minimum investment. This is one reason why random sampling of qualitative informants is not only unnecessary but also potentially counterproductive.

Analysis of qualitative data can be divided into four stages: data management, data condensation, data display, and drawing and verifying conclusions ( 9 ).

Managing Qualitative Data

From the outset, developing a clear organization system for qualitative data is important. Ideally, naming conventions for original data files and subsequent analysis should be recorded in a data dictionary file that includes dates, locations, defining individual or group characteristics, interviewer characteristics, and other defining features. Digital recordings of interviews or visualization products should be reviewed to ensure fidelity of analyzed data to original observations. If ethics agreements require that no names or identifying characteristics be recorded, all individual names must be removed from final transcriptions before analysis begins. If data are analyzed by using textual data analysis software, maintaining careful version control over the data files is crucial, especially when multiple coders are involved.

Condensing Qualitative Data

Condensing refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, and abstracting the data available at the time of the original observation, then transforming the condensed data into a data set that can be analyzed. In qualitative research, most of the time investment required to complete a study comes after the fieldwork is complete. A single hour of taped individual interview can take a full day to transcribe and additional time to translate if necessary. Group interviews can take even longer because of the difficulty of transcribing active group input. Each stage of data condensation involves multiple decisions that require clear rules and close supervision. A typical challenge is finding the right balance between fidelity to the rhythm and texture of original language and clarity of the translated version in the language of analysis. For example, discussions among groups with little or no education should not emerge after the transcription (and translation) process sounding like university graduates. Judgment must be exercised about which terms should be translated and which terms should be kept in vernacular because there is no appropriate term in English to capture the richness of its meaning.

Displaying Qualitative Data

After the initial condensation, qualitative analysis depends on how the data are displayed. Decisions regarding how data are summarized and laid out to facilitate comparison influence the depth and detail of the investigation’s conclusions. Displays might range from full verbatim transcripts of interviews to bulleted summaries or distilled summaries of interview notes. In a field setting, a useful and commonly used display format is an overview chart in which key themes or research questions are listed in rows in a word processer table or in a spreadsheet and individual informant or group entry characteristics are listed across columns. Overview charts are useful because they allow easy, systematic comparison of results.

Drawing and Verifying Conclusions

Analyzing qualitative data is an iterative and ideally interactive process that leads to rigorous and systematic interpretation of textual or visual data. At least four common steps are involved:

• Reading and rereading. The core of qualitative analysis is careful, systematic, and repeated reading of text to identify consistent themes and interconnections emerging from the data. The act of repeated reading inevitably yields new themes, connections, and deeper meanings from the first reading. Reading the full text of interviews multiple times before subdividing according to coded themes is key to appreciating the full context and flow of each interview before subdividing and extracting coded sections of text for separate analysis.
• Coding. A common technique in qualitative analysis involves developing codes for labeling sections of text for selective retrieval in later stages of analysis and verification. Different approaches can be used for textual coding. One approach, structural coding , follows the structure of the interview guide. Another approach, thematic coding , labels common themes that appear across interviews, whether by design of the topic guide or emerging themes assigned based on further analysis. To avoid the problem of shift and drift in codes across time or multiple coders, qualitative investigators should develop a standard codebook with written definitions and rules about when codes should start and stop. Coding is also an iterative process in which new codes that emerge from repeated reading are layered on top of existing codes. Development and refinement of the codebook is inseparably part of the analysis.
• Analyzing and writing memos. As codes are being developed and refined, answers to the original research question should begin to emerge. Coding can facilitate that process through selective text retrieval during which similarities within and between coding categories can be extracted and compared systematically. Because no p values can be derived in qualitative analyses to mark the transition from tentative to firm conclusions, standard practice is to write memos to record evolving insights and emerging patterns in the data and how they relate to the original research questions. Writing memos is intended to catalyze further thinking about the data, thus initiating new connections that can lead to further coding and deeper understanding.
• Verifying conclusions. Analysis rigor depends as much on the thoroughness of the cross-examination and attempt to find alternative conclusions as on the quality of original conclusions. Cross-examining conclusions can occur in different ways. One way is encouraging regular interaction between analysts to challenge conclusions and pose alternative explanations for the same data. Another way is quizzing the data (i.e., retrieving coded segments by using Boolean logic to systematically compare code contents where they overlap with other codes or informant characteristics). If alternative explanations for initial conclusions are more difficult to justify, confidence in those conclusions is strengthened.

Above all, qualitative data analysis requires sufficient time and immersion in the data. Computer textual software programs can facilitate selective text retrieval and quizzing the data, but discerning patterns and arriving at conclusions can be done only by the analysts. This requirement involves intensive reading and rereading, developing codebooks and coding, discussing and debating, revising codebooks, and recoding as needed until clear patterns emerge from the data. Although quality and depth of analysis is usually proportional to the time invested, a number of techniques, including some mentioned earlier, can be used to expedite analysis under field conditions.

• Detailed notes instead of full transcriptions. Assigning one or two note-takers to an interview can be considered where the time needed for full transcription and translation is not feasible. Even if plans are in place for full transcriptions after fieldwork, asking note-takers to submit organized summary notes is a useful technique for getting real-time feedback on interview content and making adjustments to topic guides or interviewer training as needed.
• Summary overview charts for thematic coding. (See discussion under “Displaying Data.”) If there is limited time for full transcription and/or systematic coding of text interviews using textual analysis software in the field, an overview chart is a useful technique for rapid manual coding.
• Thematic extract files. This is a slightly expanded version of manual thematic coding that is useful when full transcriptions of interviews are available. With use of a word processing program, files can be sectioned according to themes, or separate files can be created for each theme. Relevant extracts from transcripts or analyst notes can be copied and pasted into files or sections of files corresponding to each theme. This is particularly useful for storing appropriate quotes that can be used to illustrate thematic conclusions in final reports or manuscripts.
• Teamwork. Qualitative analysis can be performed by a single analyst, but it is usually beneficial to involve more than one. Qualitative conclusions involve subjective judgment calls. Having more than one coder or analyst working on a project enables more interactive discussion and debate before reaching consensus on conclusions.
• Systematic coding.
• Selective retrieval of coded segments.
• Verifying conclusions (“quizzing the data”).
• Working on larger data sets with multiple separate files.
• Working in teams with multiple coders to allow intercoder reliability to be measured and monitored.

The most widely used software packages (e.g., NVivo [QSR International Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, VIC, Australia] and ATLAS.ti [Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany]) evolved to include sophisticated analytic features covering a wide array of applications but are relatively expensive in terms of license cost and initial investment in time and training. A promising development is the advent of free or low-cost Web-based services (e.g., Dedoose [Sociocultural Research Consultants LLC, Manhattan Beach, CA]) that have many of the same analytic features on a more affordable subscription basis and that enable local research counterparts to remain engaged through the analysis phase (see Teamwork criteria). The start-up costs of computer-assisted analysis need to be weighed against their analytic benefits, which tend to decline with the volume and complexity of data to be analyzed. For rapid situational analyses or small scale qualitative studies (e.g. fewer than 30 observations as an informal rule of thumb), manual coding and analysis using word processing or spreadsheet programs is faster and sufficient to enable rigorous analysis and verification of conclusions.

Qualitative methods belong to a branch of social science inquiry that emphasizes the importance of context, subjective meanings, and motivations in understanding human behavior patterns. Qualitative approaches definitionally rely on open-ended, semistructured, non-numeric strategies for asking questions and recording responses. Conclusions are drawn from systematic visual or textual analysis involving repeated reading, coding, and organizing information into structured and emerging themes. Because textual analysis is relatively time-and skill-intensive, qualitative samples tend to be small and purposively selected to yield the maximum amount of information from the minimum amount of data collection. Although qualitative approaches cannot provide representative or generalizable findings in a statistical sense, they can offer an unparalleled level of detail, nuance, and naturalistic insight into the chosen subject of study. Qualitative methods enable investigators to “hear the voice” of the researched in a way that questionnaire methods, even with the occasional open-ended response option, cannot.

Whether or when to use qualitative methods in field epidemiology studies ultimately depends on the nature of the public health question to be answered. Qualitative approaches make sense when a study question about behavior patterns or program performance leads with why, why not , or how . Similarly, they are appropriate when the answer to the study question depends on understanding the problem from the perspective of social actors in real-life settings or when the object of study cannot be adequately captured, quantified, or categorized through a battery of closed-ended survey questions (e.g., stigma or the foundation of health beliefs). Another justification for qualitative methods occurs when the topic is especially sensitive or subject to strong social desirability biases that require developing trust with the informant and persistent probing to reach the truth. Finally, qualitative methods make sense when the study question is exploratory in nature, where this approach enables the investigator the freedom and flexibility to adjust topic guides and probe beyond the original topic guides.

Given that the conditions just described probably apply more often than not in everyday field epidemiology, it might be surprising that such approaches are not incorporated more routinely into standard epidemiologic training. Part of the answer might have to do with the subjective element in qualitative sampling and analysis that seems at odds with core scientific values of objectivity. Part of it might have to do with the skill requirements for good qualitative interviewing, which are generally more difficult to find than those required for routine survey interviewing.

For the field epidemiologist unfamiliar with qualitative study design, it is important to emphasize that obtaining important insights from applying basic approaches is possible, even without a seasoned team of qualitative researchers on hand to do the work. The flexibility of qualitative methods also tends to make them forgiving with practice and persistence. Beyond the required study approvals and ethical clearances, the basic essential requirements for collecting qualitative data in field settings start with an interviewer having a strong command of the research question, basic interactive and language skills, and a healthy sense of curiosity, armed with a simple open-ended topic guide and a tape recorder or note-taker to capture the key points of the discussion. Readily available manuals on qualitative study design, methods, and analysis can provide additional guidance to improve the quality of data collection and analysis.

• Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice . 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.
• Hennink M, Hutter I, Bailey A. Qualitative research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010.
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. The constructivist credo . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2013.
• Mack N, Woodsong C, MacQueen KM, Guest G, Namey E. Qualitative research methods: a data collectors field guide. https://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Qualitative%20Research%20Methods%20-%20A%20Data%20Collector%27s%20Field%20Guide.pdf
• Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:230–43.
• Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.
• Margolis E, Pauwels L. The Sage handbook of visual research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.
• Mason M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum : Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung. 2010;11(3).
• Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.
• Silver C, Lewins A. Using software in qualitative research: a step-by-step guide . Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage: 2014.

< Previous Chapter 9: Optimizing Epidemiology– Laboratory Collaborations

Next Chapter 11: Developing Interventions >

The fellowship application period is open now through June 5, 2024.

The host site application period is now closed.

For questions, please contact the EIS program directly at [email protected] .

• Laboratory Leadership Service (LLS)
• Fellowships and Training Opportunities
• Division of Workforce Development

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik aspers.

1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

2 Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

3 Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Biographies

is professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, Uppsala University and Universität St. Gallen. His main focus is economic sociology, and in particular, markets. He has published numerous articles and books, including Orderly Fashion (Princeton University Press 2010), Markets (Polity Press 2011) and Re-Imagining Economic Sociology (edited with N. Dodd, Oxford University Press 2015). His book Ethnographic Methods (in Swedish) has already gone through several editions.

is associate professor of sociology at the Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger. His research has been published in journals such as Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Theory, Teaching Sociology, and Music and Arts in Action. As an ethnographer he is working on a book on he social world of big-wave surfing.

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .

Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .

• Åkerström M. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):10–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Alvesson M, Kärreman D. Qualitative research and theory development . Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
• Atkinson P. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (3):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Social Problems. 1966; 14 (3):239–247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Sociological work. Method and substance. New Brunswick: Transaction Books; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. The epistemology of qualitative research. In: Richard J, Anne C, Shweder RA, editors. Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker H, Geer B, Hughes E, Strauss A. Boys in White, student culture in medical school. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berezin M. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):141–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
• Biernacki R. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady H, Collier D, Seawright J. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In: Henry B, David C, editors. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 2004. pp. 3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown AP. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research. 2010; 10 (2):229–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
• Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidsson D. The myth of the subjective. In: Davidsson D, editor. Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. pp. 39–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2003. pp. 1–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2005. pp. 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, editor. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esterberg KG. Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
• Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
• Fine GA, Hancock BH. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research. 2017; 17 (2):260–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine GA, Hallett T. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. 2014; 3 (2):188–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information. 2002; 41 (1):5–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. 5. London: Edward Arnold; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society. 2010; 39 (6):593–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology. 2016; 19 (1):137–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
• Gans H. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1999; 28 (5):540–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert N. Researching social life. 3. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaeser A. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 :207–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
• Goertz G, Mahoney J. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goffman E. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1989; 18 (2):123–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin J, Horowitz R. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2002; 25 (1):33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
• Hammersley M. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2007; 30 (3):287–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Hammersley M. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education. 2018; 13 (1):1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography . Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Hempel CG. Philosophy of the natural sciences. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood JC. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology. 2006; 34 (3):207–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• James W. Pragmatism. New York: Meredian Books; 1907. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jovanović G. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences. 2011; 24 (2):1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalof L, Dan A, Dietz T. Essentials of social research. London: Open University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research. 2015; 44 (1):108–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• King G, Keohane RO, Sidney S, Verba S. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. Designing social inquiry. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In: Lamont M, White P, editors. Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2004. pp. 91–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M, Swidler A. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):153–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarsfeld P, Barton A. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In: Kendall P, editor. The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld. New York: Columbia University Press; 1982. pp. 239–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; 10.1177/0049124114554458.
• Lofland J, Lofland L. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofland J, Snow DA, Anderson L, Lofland LH. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 4. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Long AF, Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2004; 7 (2):181–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg G. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1951. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge; 1922. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manicas P. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchel C, Owens S. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology. 2007; 10 (4):301–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre LJ. Need to know. Social science research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton RK, Barber E. The travels and adventures of serendipity . A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannay D, Morgan M. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘ Qualitative Research. 2015; 15 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman LW. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin CC. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
• Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
• Schütz A. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seiffert H. Einführung in die Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Franke; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. 2. London: SAGE Publications; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):48–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small ML. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography. 2009; 10 (1):5–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
• Snow DA, Anderson L. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow DA, Morrill C. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1995; 24 (3):341–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. 14. Chicago: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
• Swedberg R. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February. 1990; 3 (1):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmermans S, Tavory I. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (3):167–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trier-Bieniek A. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (6):630–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner J. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information. 2000; 39 (1):99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

9 methodologies for a successful qualitative research assignment

Qualitative research is important in the educational and scientific domains. It enables a deeper understanding of phenomena, experiences, and context. Many researchers employ such research activities in the fields of history, sociology, and anthropology. For such researchers, learning quality analysis insights is crucial. This way, they can perform well throughout their research journey. Writing a qualitative research assignment is one such way to practice qualitative interpretations. When students address various qualitative questions in these projects, they become efficient in conducting these activities at a higher level, such as for a master’s or Ph.D. thesis.

The FormPlus highlights why researchers prefer qualitative research over quantitative research. It is faster, scientific, objective, focused, and acceptable. Researchers who don’t know what to expect from the research outcomes usually choose qualitative research. In this guide, we will discuss the top methodologies that students can employ while writing their qualitative research assignments. This way, you can write an appealing document that perfectly demonstrates your qualitative research skills.

However, being stressed with academic and daily life commitments, if you find it challenging to manage time exclusively for such projects, availing of assignment writing services can make it manageable. Instead of doing anything wrong in the hustle, get it done by the professionals specifically working to handle these academic write-ups. Now, let’s define quality research before we discuss the actual topic.

What is meant by qualitative research?

Quality research is a market research method that gathers data from conversational and open-ended communication. In simple words, it is about what people think and why they think so. It relates to the nature or standard of something rather than dealing with its quantity. Such researchers collect nonnumerical data to understand opinions, concepts, and ideas.

How do you write a qualitative research assignment? Top 9 methodologies

Writing an assignment requires your command of various tasks. Qualitative research assignment design involves research, writing, structuring, and providing citations of the resources used. Assignment writing plays a crucial role in upgrading your grades.

So, you must make it accurate and authentic. Write it with the utmost care without skipping any important aspects. Sometimes, it can be hard, but it becomes easy if you correctly use effective methodologies. This is why we have brought together some of the common methodologies you can use to write your qualitative research assignments.

1. Interviews

A qualitative interview is mostly used in projects that involve market research. In this study personal interaction is required to collect in-depth information of the participants. In qualitative research for assignment, consider the interview as a personal form of research agenda rather than a focused group study. A qualitative interview requires careful planning so that you can gather meaningful data.

Here are the simple steps to consider for its implementation in a qualitative research assignment:

• Define research objectives.
• Identify the target population.
• Obtain informed consent of participants.
• Make an interview guideline.
• Select a suitable location.
• Conduct the interview.
• Show respect for participant’s perspectives.
• Analyse the data.

2. Observation

In qualitative observation, the researcher gathers data from five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. It is a subject approach that depends on the sensory organ of the researcher. This method allows you to better understand the culture, process, and people under study. Some of its characteristics to consider for writing a qualitative research assignment include,

• It is a naturalistic inquiry of the participants in a natural environment.
• This approach is subjective and depends on the researcher’s observation.
• It does not seek a definite answer to a query.
• The researcher can recognise their own biases when compiling findings.

3. Questionnaires

In this type of survey, the researcher asks open-ended questions to participants. This way, they price the long written or typed document. In writing qualitative research assignments, these questions aim to reveal the participants’ narratives and experiences. Once you know what type of information you need, you can start curating your questionnaire form. The questions must be specific and clear enough that the participants can comprehend them.

Below are the main points that must be considered when creating qualitative research questionnaires.

• Avoid jargon and ambiguity in the questions.
• Each question should contribute to the research objectives.
• Use simple language.
• The questions should be neutral and unbiased.
• Be precise, as the complex questions can overwhelm the respondents.
• Always conduct a pilot test.
• Put yourself in the respondent’s shoes while asking questions.

4. Case Study

A case study is a detailed analysis of a person, place, thing, organisation, or phenomenon. This method is appropriate when you want to gain a contextual, concrete, and in-depth understanding of the real-world problem for writing your qualitative research assignment. This method is especially helpful when you need more time to conduct large-scale research activities.

The four crucial steps below can be followed up with this methodology.

• Select a case that has the potential to provide new and unexpected insights into the subject.
• Make a theoretical framework.
• Collect your data from various primary and secondary resources.
• Describe and analyse the case to provide a clear picture of the subject.

5. Focus Groups

Focused group research has some interesting properties. In this method, a planned interview is conducted within a small group. For this purpose, some of the participants are sampled from the study population to record data for writing a qualitative research assignment. Typically, a focused group has features like,

• At least four to ten participants must meet for up to two hours.
• There must be a facilitator who can guide the discussion by asking open-ended questions.
• The emphasis must be put on the group discussion rather than the discussion of the group members with the facilitator.
• The discussion should be recorded and transcribed by the researchers.

6. Ethnographic Research

It is the most in-depth research method that involves studying people in their natural environment. It requires the researcher to adopt the target audience environment. The environment can be anything from an organisation to a city or any remote location.

However, the geographical constraints can be a problem in this study. For students who are writing their qualitative research assignment, some of the features of ethnographic research to write in their document include,

• The researcher can get a more realistic picture of the study.
• It uncovers extremely valuable insights.
• Provides accurate predictions.
• You can extend the observation to create more in-depth data.
• You can interact with people within a particular context.

7. Record Keeping

This method is similar to going to the library to collect data from books. You consult various relayed books, note the important points, and take note of the referencing. So, the researcher uses already existing data rather than introducing new things in the field.

Later on, this data can be used to conduct new research. Yet, when faced with the vast resources available in your institution’s library, seeking assistance from UK-based assignment writing services is an excellent solution if you need help pinpointing the most relevant information for your topic. Proficient in data gathering and adept at structuring qualitative research assignments, these professionals can significantly elevate your academic results.

This method is mostly used by companies to understand a group of customers’ behaviour, characteristics, and motivation. It allows respondents to ask in-depth questions about their experience. In a business market, it helps you understand how your customers make decisions. The intent is to understand them at their level and make related changes in your setup. The researcher must ask generic and precise questions that have a clear purpose.

Consider the below examples of qualitative survey questions. It can be useful in recording data and writing qualitative research assignments.

• Why did you buy this skin care product?
• What is the overall narrative of this brand?
• How do you feel after buying this product?
• What sets this brand apart from others?
• How will this product fulfil your needs?
• What are the things that you expect from this brand to grant you?

9. Action Research

This method involves collaboration and empowerment of the participants. It is mostly appropriate for marginalised groups where there is no flexibility.

The primary characteristics of the action research that can be quoted in your qualitative research assignment include,

• It is action-oriented, and participants are actively involved in the research.
• There is a collaborative process between participants and researchers.
• The nature of action research is flexible to the changing situation.

However, the survey also accompanies some of the limitations, including,

• The researcher can misinterpret the open-ended questions.
• The data ownership between the researcher and participants needs to be negotiated.
• The ethical considerations must be kept.
• It is not considered a scientific method as it is fluid in data collection. Consequently, it may not attract the finding.

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative research?

Both research types share the common aim of knowledge acquisition. In quantitative research, the use of numbers and objective measures is used. It seeks answers to questions like when and where.

On the other hand, in qualitative research, the researcher is concerned with subjective phenomena. Such data can’t be numerically measured. For example, you might conduct a survey to analyse how different people experience grief.

What are the 4 types of qualitative research?

There are various types of qualitative research. It may include,

● Phenomenological studies:

It examines the human experience via description provided by the people involved. These are the lived experiences of the people. It is usually used in research areas where little knowledge is known.

● Ethnographic studies:

It involves the analysis of data about cultural groups. In such analysis, the researcher mostly lives with different communities and becomes part of their culture to provide solid interpretations.

● Grounded theory studies:

In this qualitative approach, the researcher collects and analyses the data. Later on, a theory is developed that is grounded in the data. It used both inductive and deductive approaches for theory development.

● Historical studies:

It is concerned with the location, identification, evaluation, and synthesis of data from the past. These researchers are not concerned with discovering past events but with relating these events to the present happenings.

The Research Gate provides a flow chart illustrating various qualitative research methods.

What are The 7 characteristics of qualitative research?

The following are some of the distinct features of qualitative research. You can write about them in your qualitative research assignment, as they are collected from reliable sources.

• It can even capture the changing attitude within the target group.
• It is beyond the limitations associated with quantitative research
• It explains something that numbers alone can’t describe.
• It is a flexible approach to improve the outcomes.
• A researcher is not supposed to become more speculative about the results.
• This approach is more targeted.
• It keeps the cost of data collection down.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research?

The pros of qualitative research can’t be denied. However, some cons are also associated with this research.

• Explore attitudes and behaviours in depth.
• It encourages discussions for better results.
• Generate descriptive data that can formulate new theories.
• The small sample size can be a problem.
• Bias in the sample collection.
• Lack of privacy if you are covering a sensitive topic.

Qualitative research assignment examples

The Afe Babalola University ePortal provides an example of a qualitative assignment. Here is the description of quality questions and related answers. You can get an idea about how to handle your quality research assignment project with this sample.

The questions asked in the paper are displayed below.

The Slide Team presents a template for further compressing other details, such as the qualitative research assignment template. You can use it to make your presentation look professional.

Writing a qualitative research assignment is crucial, especially if you want to engage in research activities for your master’s thesis. Most researchers choose this method because of the associated credibility and reliability of the results. In the above guide, we have discussed some of the prominent features of this method. All of the given data can help you in writing your assignments. We have discussed the benefits of each methodology and a brief account of how you can carry it.

However, even after going through this whole guideline, if the concepts of the Qualitative Research methods assignment seem ambiguous and you think you can’t write a good project, then ask professional to “ write my assignment .” These experts can consult the best sources for the data collection of your project. Consequently, they will deliver you the winning document that can stand out among other write-ups.

Data Scientist

• Madison, Wisconsin
• SCHOOL OF EDUCATION/WIS CENTER FOR EDUCATION RESCH-GEN
• Partially Remote
• Staff-Full Time
• Opening at: Mar 29 2024 at 14:05 CDT
• Closing at: Apr 12 2024 at 23:55 CDT

Job Summary:

METRICS staff are collecting multiple forms of data, including (a) data related to SBMH and MHSP training program use of and satisfaction with METRICS resources and services, and (b) outcome data from each training program indicative of the extent to which they are meeting their program goals and objectives. The Data Scientist will lead quantitative analyses of these data, identify trends in the findings, summarize and report findings, and work with other staff in using quantitative and qualitative data to inform continuous improvement efforts. This individual will also consult with training programs on performance data collection, summary, and reporting. The Data Scientist will create automated processes for collecting and summarizing data to support efficient and effective decision-making. This position offers a comprehensive benefits package, including generous paid time off, competitively priced health/dental/vision/life insurance, tax-advantaged savings accounts, and participation in the nationally recognized Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) pension fund.

Responsibilities:

• 25% Prepares data sets for analysis including cleaning/quality assurance, transformations, restructuring, and integration of multiple data sources
• 15% Implements appropriate data science techniques under the guidance of other data scientists, statisticians, and/or other researchers to find data patterns and answer research questions chosen by the lead researcher including data visualization, statistical analysis, machine learning, and data mining
• 25% Organizes and automates project steps for data preparation and analysis
• 20% Composes and assembles reproducible workflows and reports to clearly articulate patterns to researchers and/or administrators
• 15% Documents approaches to address research questions

Institutional Statement on Diversity:

Diversity is a source of strength, creativity, and innovation for UW-Madison. We value the contributions of each person and respect the profound ways their identity, culture, background, experience, status, abilities, and opinion enrich the university community. We commit ourselves to the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, outreach, and diversity as inextricably linked goals. The University of Wisconsin-Madison fulfills its public mission by creating a welcoming and inclusive community for people from every background - people who as students, faculty, and staff serve Wisconsin and the world. For more information on diversity and inclusion on campus, please visit: Diversity and Inclusion

Required Master's Degree Required Master's in Statistics, Data Science, Quantitative Methods, or related field

Qualifications:

*Experience conducting social science research is required. *Experience working with K-12 school systems is highly desirable. Well-qualified applicants will have the following experience: -Two years of quantitative analysis experience in a professional setting -Excellent organizational skills and attention to detail -Practical experience in collecting and analyzing performance data in K-12 systems -Ability to stay current on new data analytic methodologies -Effective and flexible communication skills -Ability to work effectively in a variety of social and academic settings -Ability to work independently and collaboratively on team-based projects

Full Time: 100% This position may require some work to be performed in-person, onsite, at a designated campus work location. Some work may be performed remotely, at an offsite, non-campus work location. The balance of in-person and remote work for this position will be discussed at the time of hire.

Appointment Type, Duration:

Ongoing/Renewable

Minimum $50,000 ANNUAL (12 months) Depending on Qualifications Employees in this position can expect to receive benefits such as generous vacation, holidays, and paid time off; competitive insurances and savings accounts; retirement benefits.

Additional Information:

METRICS is supporting grantees of the U.S. Department of Education's programs for increasing the number of mental health providers in schools: School-Based Mental Health (SBMH) and Mental Health Services Professionals (MHSP). METRICS is also distributing resources to states, districts, and schools nationwide to help them implement high-quality projects to address the social, emotional, and mental health needs of PK-12 students and increase the number of school-based mental health services providers. The Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER), established in 1964, is one of the first, most productive, and largest university-based education research and development centers in the world. WCER's researchers and staff work to make teaching and learning as effective as possible for all ages and all people. WCER's mission is to improve educational outcomes for diverse student populations, impact education practice positively and foster collaborations among academic disciplines and practitioners. To this end, our center helps scholars and practitioners develop, submit, conduct, and share grant-funded education research. At WCER, all employees share five fundamental organization values to guide the purpose and quality of our work and interactions within ourselves and our outside stakeholders. The values that the work and people of WCER strive to uphold are: - Innovation and Excellence. Continuous improvement is a driver for excellence. We innovate and improve in our work to advance education through leading research and development. - Equitable Education. Equitable education is essential to a healthy society. We aim to reverse imbalances and injustices in education through our work. - Affirming and Increasing Diversity. Individual differences and group diversity inspire creative and equitable outcomes. We actively affirm and seek to increase such diversity in our center. - Healthy Workplace. The well-being of our workplace enhances success for all. We commit to a workplace based on mutual respect and transparency. - Partnering Across Differences. Diverse backgrounds and expertise improve the quality of our work. We collaborate across disciplines, methodologies, organizations, and communities to strengthen our research and development outcomes.

How to Apply:

Please click on the "Apply Now" button to start the application process. As part of the application process, you will be required to submit: - A cover letter addressed to Steve Kilgus describing how your experience and qualifications meet the requirements of this position - A current resume - A list with the contact information of at least three professional references

Laura Hankes [email protected] 608-890-4461 Relay Access (WTRS): 7-1-1. See RELAY_SERVICE for further information.

Official Title:

Data Scientist I(RE020)

Department(s):

A17-SCHOOL OF EDUCATION/WCER

Employment Class:

Academic Staff-Renewable

Job Number:

The university of wisconsin-madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer..

You will be redirected to the application to launch your career momentarily. Thank you!

Frequently Asked Questions

Applicant Tutorial

Disability Accommodations

Pay Transparency Policy Statement

Refer a Friend

You've sent this job to a friend!

Website feedback, questions or accessibility issues: [email protected] .

Learn more about accessibility at UW–Madison .

© 2016–2024 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System • Privacy Statement