what is qualitative research research

Qualitative Research : Definition

Qualitative research is the naturalistic study of social meanings and processes, using interviews, observations, and the analysis of texts and images.  In contrast to quantitative researchers, whose statistical methods enable broad generalizations about populations (for example, comparisons of the percentages of U.S. demographic groups who vote in particular ways), qualitative researchers use in-depth studies of the social world to analyze how and why groups think and act in particular ways (for instance, case studies of the experiences that shape political views).   

Events and Workshops

• Introduction to NVivo Have you just collected your data and wondered what to do next? Come join us for an introductory session on utilizing NVivo to support your analytical process. This session will only cover features of the software and how to import your records. Please feel free to attend any of the following sessions below: April 25th, 2024 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm Green Library - SVA Conference Room 125 May 9th, 2024 12:30 pm - 1:45 pm Green Library - SVA Conference Room 125
• Next: Choose an approach >>
• Choose an approach
• Find studies
• Learn methods
• Getting Started
• Get software
• Get data for secondary analysis
• Network with researchers

• Last Updated: May 23, 2024 1:27 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/qualitative_research

What is qualitative research?

The most fundamental characteristic of qualitative research is its express commitment to viewing events, action, norms, values, etc. from the perspective of the people who experience them in everyday life. (Bryman, 2004: p. 61)

The term “qualitative research” refers to an umbrella concept that encompasses many different forms of inquiry and methodological practices. It engages a variety of theoretical lenses, strategies, and techniques. Different from quantitative research, which is based on probability and measurement ( quantity ), qualitative research is based on the quality of the data generated to explain a phenomenon (e.g., why older adults would resist using some kinds of mobility devices) (Gardner, 2014). Traditionally, in the health sciences, qualitative research has been defined in opposition to quantitative research. A stereotypical view of qualitative research is that it is defined by its data generation methods, such as interviews and observations. These techniques are in fact shared with quantitative research; for example in psychological studies, observation is a commonly used strategy for quantification of behaviours (Green & Thorogood, 2004).  We caution against these simplistic generalizations. As illustrated in this chapter, all qualitative health methodologies and methods are centred around the notion of knowledge production grounded in the quality (the explanatory potential) of the information generated about a phenomenon.

Qualitative research is best defined by its aims: it asks different questions and has a different focus than quantitative research. It is concerned with questions of how, why, and what (Green & Thorogood, 2004).  Qualitative research is rooted in the social sciences and is concerned with people and their social realities (Bryman, 2004), with how the social world is understood, experienced, interpreted, and constituted; with individual and collective meanings, interpretations, practices/behaviours, and social processes. Its perspective is emic; it focuses on the subjectivity of human experiences (de la Cuesta, 2015). In the health sciences, qualitative research is the ideal approach for studying the meanings people give to their experiences and how they make sense of their social worlds (e.g., patients’ perceptions of self-care education or reasons for adherence, or not, to prescribed medication). Health care and health promotion are largely shaped by people’s perceptions, social norms, and organizational standards and practices; all these issues are social in nature and hence can be studied qualitatively.

Qualitative research is also based on a naturalistic approach to data generation. This means that people, situations, and events are studied where they happen, in their “natural settings,” and thus all qualitative data are contextual, connected to the people, places, times, events, and the everyday social interactions – or “social and cultural contexts” –  in which the data are generated. Context is also essential for understanding social behaviours and for making sense of or analyzing data produced. Context includes considerations such as who, when, where, why, class, race/ethnicity/gender, age, and circumstances (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Korstjens & Moser, 2017).

Qualitative research has also been described in terms of its broad purposes or goals: exploratory, where researchers investigate phenomena about which little is known; explanatory, where relationships, events, behaviours, or beliefs related to a group are explained; descriptive, where experiences or events are documented; and emancipatory, where the goal is to create opportunities for people to engage in social action (Agee, 2009). While these objectives can be helpful in situating a study, they are artificial distinctions because qualitative researchers often combine more than one goal in their study design. For example, answering a question such as “what are the processes that shape the ability of patients with diabetes to follow a prescribed diet?” requires both description and explanation.

Additionally, qualitative research traditions vary according to the uses researchers in distinct disciplines make of them. Within health sciences, for example, there is a particular way to think about “types” of qualitative research. Eakin (2016) refers to the dominance of post-positivist qualitative research (PPQR) in the health sciences, where qualitative data is viewed through a positivist lens: for instance, data are “real” and speak for themselves; findings “emerge” from the data independently of the researcher, who assumes a veneer of neutrality; and “findings” are reported mainly in implicitly quantitative terms (“some,” “most”). In PPQR, qualitative research is conceived of as purely a “method or technique, a ‘toolbox’ of procedures divorced from their philosophical undercarriage” (Eakin, 2016: p.111). Eakin concludes that this type of qualitative research has “limited value either as positivist or interpretive enterprise [because] it cannot satisfy the criteria for adequate positivist design (objective standardized procedure, statistical generalizability) or for adequate interpretive design (researcher as instrument, conceptual generalizability)” (p. 111).

As we are interested in doing the most we can when we use qualitative research to improve health care delivery and to challenge the ways we think about health issues broadly (e.g., social discourses, policies, programs), we engage with an interpretive, rather than a post-positivist, form of qualitative research. This is also called “interpretive research” (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). Interpretive qualitative research is rooted in the assumption that meaning is discerned by the researcher. Through language use, human interaction, and meaning-making, the researcher and participant create the conditions for an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon (e.g., the stigma associated with TB treatment).

This type of interpretive qualitative research strives for what Eakin (2016)  calls “value-added” analysis. It is an approach that refuses a mere cataloguing of pre-conceived or common-sense ideas, maximizes the “creative presence” of the researcher, and deploys theoretical abstraction as a key methodological strategy for reconceptualizing phenomena and creating generalizable knowledge, through the process of theorization (Eakin, 2016). Here the researcher goes beyond mere description of an experience or a phenomenon to question, for instance, commonly held notions and assumptions, or the everyday experiences that are taken for granted. The researcher does not take data as given but works hard to interpret it, considers the story behind the story, questions common-sense and received understandings, and asks questions about the nature of the phenomenon under study (Eakin, 2016). (see also Ward, Hoare & Gott, 2015).

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research in Psychology

Anabelle Bernard Fournier is a researcher of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Victoria as well as a freelance writer on various health topics.

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

• Key Differences

Quantitative Research Methods

Qualitative research methods.

• How They Relate

In psychology and other social sciences, researchers are faced with an unresolved question: Can we measure concepts like love or racism the same way we can measure temperature or the weight of a star? Social phenomena⁠—things that happen because of and through human behavior⁠—are especially difficult to grasp with typical scientific models.

At a Glance

Psychologists rely on quantitative and quantitative research to better understand human thought and behavior.

• Qualitative research involves collecting and evaluating non-numerical data in order to understand concepts or subjective opinions.
• Quantitative research involves collecting and evaluating numerical data. 

This article discusses what qualitative and quantitative research are, how they are different, and how they are used in psychology research.

Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research

In order to understand qualitative and quantitative psychology research, it can be helpful to look at the methods that are used and when each type is most appropriate.

Psychologists rely on a few methods to measure behavior, attitudes, and feelings. These include:

• Self-reports , like surveys or questionnaires
• Observation (often used in experiments or fieldwork)
• Implicit attitude tests that measure timing in responding to prompts

Most of these are quantitative methods. The result is a number that can be used to assess differences between groups.

However, most of these methods are static, inflexible (you can't change a question because a participant doesn't understand it), and provide a "what" answer rather than a "why" answer.

Sometimes, researchers are more interested in the "why" and the "how." That's where qualitative methods come in.

Qualitative research is about speaking to people directly and hearing their words. It is grounded in the philosophy that the social world is ultimately unmeasurable, that no measure is truly ever "objective," and that how humans make meaning is just as important as how much they score on a standardized test.

Used to develop theories

Takes a broad, complex approach

Answers "why" and "how" questions

Explores patterns and themes

Used to test theories

Takes a narrow, specific approach

Answers "what" questions

Explores statistical relationships

Quantitative methods have existed ever since people have been able to count things. But it is only with the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte (which maintains that factual knowledge obtained by observation is trustworthy) that it became a "scientific method."

The scientific method follows this general process. A researcher must:

• Generate a theory or hypothesis (i.e., predict what might happen in an experiment) and determine the variables needed to answer their question
• Develop instruments to measure the phenomenon (such as a survey, a thermometer, etc.)
• Develop experiments to manipulate the variables
• Collect empirical (measured) data
• Analyze data

Quantitative methods are about measuring phenomena, not explaining them.

Quantitative research compares two groups of people. There are all sorts of variables you could measure, and many kinds of experiments to run using quantitative methods.

These comparisons are generally explained using graphs, pie charts, and other visual representations that give the researcher a sense of how the various data points relate to one another.

Basic Assumptions

Quantitative methods assume:

• That the world is measurable
• That humans can observe objectively
• That we can know things for certain about the world from observation

In some fields, these assumptions hold true. Whether you measure the size of the sun 2000 years ago or now, it will always be the same. But when it comes to human behavior, it is not so simple.

As decades of cultural and social research have shown, people behave differently (and even think differently) based on historical context, cultural context, social context, and even identity-based contexts like gender , social class, or sexual orientation .

Therefore, quantitative methods applied to human behavior (as used in psychology and some areas of sociology) should always be rooted in their particular context. In other words: there are no, or very few, human universals.

Statistical information is the primary form of quantitative data used in human and social quantitative research. Statistics provide lots of information about tendencies across large groups of people, but they can never describe every case or every experience. In other words, there are always outliers.

Correlation and Causation

A basic principle of statistics is that correlation is not causation. Researchers can only claim a cause-and-effect relationship under certain conditions:

• The study was a true experiment.
• The independent variable can be manipulated (for example, researchers cannot manipulate gender, but they can change the primer a study subject sees, such as a picture of nature or of a building).
• The dependent variable can be measured through a ratio or a scale.

So when you read a report that "gender was linked to" something (like a behavior or an attitude), remember that gender is NOT a cause of the behavior or attitude. There is an apparent relationship, but the true cause of the difference is hidden.

Pitfalls of Quantitative Research

Quantitative methods are one way to approach the measurement and understanding of human and social phenomena. But what's missing from this picture?

As noted above, statistics do not tell us about personal, individual experiences and meanings. While surveys can give a general idea, respondents have to choose between only a few responses. This can make it difficult to understand the subtleties of different experiences.

Quantitative methods can be helpful when making objective comparisons between groups or when looking for relationships between variables. They can be analyzed statistically, which can be helpful when looking for patterns and relationships.

Qualitative data are not made out of numbers but rather of descriptions, metaphors, symbols, quotes, analysis, concepts, and characteristics. This approach uses interviews, written texts, art, photos, and other materials to make sense of human experiences and to understand what these experiences mean to people.

While quantitative methods ask "what" and "how much," qualitative methods ask "why" and "how."

Qualitative methods are about describing and analyzing phenomena from a human perspective. There are many different philosophical views on qualitative methods, but in general, they agree that some questions are too complex or impossible to answer with standardized instruments.

These methods also accept that it is impossible to be completely objective in observing phenomena. Researchers have their own thoughts, attitudes, experiences, and beliefs, and these always color how people interpret results.

Qualitative Approaches

There are many different approaches to qualitative research, with their own philosophical bases. Different approaches are best for different kinds of projects. For example:

• Case studies and narrative studies are best for single individuals. These involve studying every aspect of a person's life in great depth.
• Phenomenology aims to explain experiences. This type of work aims to describe and explore different events as they are consciously and subjectively experienced.
• Grounded theory develops models and describes processes. This approach allows researchers to construct a theory based on data that is collected, analyzed, and compared to reach new discoveries.
• Ethnography describes cultural groups. In this approach, researchers immerse themselves in a community or group in order to observe behavior.

Qualitative researchers must be aware of several different methods and know each thoroughly enough to produce valuable research.

Some researchers specialize in a single method, but others specialize in a topic or content area and use many different methods to explore the topic, providing different information and a variety of points of view.

There is not a single model or method that can be used for every qualitative project. Depending on the research question, the people participating, and the kind of information they want to produce, researchers will choose the appropriate approach.

Interpretation

Qualitative research does not look into causal relationships between variables, but rather into themes, values, interpretations, and meanings. As a rule, then, qualitative research is not generalizable (cannot be applied to people outside the research participants).

The insights gained from qualitative research can extend to other groups with proper attention to specific historical and social contexts.

Relationship Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

It might sound like quantitative and qualitative research do not play well together. They have different philosophies, different data, and different outputs. However, this could not be further from the truth.

These two general methods complement each other. By using both, researchers can gain a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon.

For example, a psychologist wanting to develop a new survey instrument about sexuality might and ask a few dozen people questions about their sexual experiences (this is qualitative research). This gives the researcher some information to begin developing questions for their survey (which is a quantitative method).

After the survey, the same or other researchers might want to dig deeper into issues brought up by its data. Follow-up questions like "how does it feel when...?" or "what does this mean to you?" or "how did you experience this?" can only be answered by qualitative research.

By using both quantitative and qualitative data, researchers have a more holistic, well-rounded understanding of a particular topic or phenomenon.

Qualitative and quantitative methods both play an important role in psychology. Where quantitative methods can help answer questions about what is happening in a group and to what degree, qualitative methods can dig deeper into the reasons behind why it is happening. By using both strategies, psychology researchers can learn more about human thought and behavior.

Gough B, Madill A. Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect . Psychol Methods . 2012;17(3):374-384. doi:10.1037/a0029313

Pearce T. “Science organized”: Positivism and the metaphysical club, 1865–1875 . J Hist Ideas . 2015;76(3):441-465.

Adams G. Context in person, person in context: A cultural psychology approach to social-personality psychology . In: Deaux K, Snyder M, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology . Oxford University Press; 2012:182-208.

Brady HE. Causation and explanation in social science . In: Goodin RE, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press; 2011. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049

Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers .  SAGE Open Med . 2019;7:2050312118822927. doi:10.1177/2050312118822927

Reeves S, Peller J, Goldman J, Kitto S. Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80 . Medical Teacher . 2013;35(8):e1365-e1379. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977

Salkind NJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Research Design . Sage Publishing.

Shaughnessy JJ, Zechmeister EB, Zechmeister JS.  Research Methods in Psychology . McGraw Hill Education.

By Anabelle Bernard Fournier Anabelle Bernard Fournier is a researcher of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Victoria as well as a freelance writer on various health topics.

• Top Courses
• Online Degrees
• Find your New Career
• Join for Free

What is Qualitative Research?

This course is part of Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology Specialization

Taught in English

Instructor: Mike Stadler, PhD

Financial aid available

Recommended experience

Beginner level

High school degree or equivalent

What you'll learn

Understand and describe the iterative, naturalistic, and contextual facets of qualitative research.

Examine and comprehend the philosophical underpinnings and interpretive frameworks informing qualitative research.

Learn to evaluate qualitative studies by their associated rigor criteria, differing from those used to evaluate quantitative studies.

Skills you'll gain

• Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research
• Research Evaluation
• Interpretive Framework
• Researcvher-Participant Relationship

Details to know

Add to your LinkedIn profile

21 assignments

See how employees at top companies are mastering in-demand skills

Build your subject-matter expertise

• Learn new concepts from industry experts
• Gain a foundational understanding of a subject or tool
• Develop job-relevant skills with hands-on projects
• Earn a shareable career certificate

Earn a career certificate

Add this credential to your LinkedIn profile, resume, or CV

Share it on social media and in your performance review

There are 6 modules in this course

This is primarily aimed at first- and second-year undergraduates interested in psychology, data analysis, and qualitative research methods along with high school students and professionals with similar interests.

This introduction to qualitative research in psychology provides an in-depth exploration of individuals' lived experiences through methods like interviews and observations. It delves into the historical, philosophical, and cross-disciplinary foundations of qualitative research, illustrating these foundations with a variety of examples, activities, and self-assessments. The course aims to foster an understanding of how qualitative inquiry adds depth and nuance to our comprehension of individual and collective human experiences. It addresses the common critiques of qualitative research and introduces the four trustworthiness criteria that researchers use in evaluating the soundness of a given qualitative study. The course also emphasizes the role of the researcher and the close relationships between the inquirer and participants in qualitative studies.

Learn With PsycLearn Essentials

This module introduces you to your PsycLearn Essentials course. Find out what’s included in this course and how to navigate the modules and lessons. You’ll also learn valuable study tips for successful learning.

What's included

2 videos 6 readings

2 videos • Total 3 minutes

• Get Started With PsycLearn Essentials! • 1 minute • Preview module
• Metacognitive Checkpoints: Pause and Reflect on Your Learning • 1 minute

6 readings • Total 23 minutes

• Welcome to PsycLearn Essentials • 3 minutes
• Requirements to Earn a Coursera Specialization Certificate • 2 minutes
• What’s in Your Course • 5 minutes
• Coursera Honor Code and Discussion Forum Policy • 3 minutes
• Study Tips for Success in PsycLearn Essentials • 5 minutes
• Additional Information • 5 minutes

Introduction

1 reading • total 1 minute.

• Course Overview • 1 minute

Introduction to Qualitative Research

2 videos 12 readings 11 assignments

2 videos • Total 8 minutes

• The Nature of Qualitative Research • 5 minutes • Preview module
• Philosophical Foundations: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology • 3 minutes

12 readings • Total 50 minutes

• Qualitative Research in the World • 2 minutes
• The Nature of Qualitative Research • 5 minutes
• Philosophical Underpinnings • 3 minutes
• Exploring Philosophical Foundations • 3 minutes
• Before Exploring Interpretive Frameworks • 2 minutes
• Exploring Philosophical Foundations • 6 minutes
• Further Exploration of Philosophical Foundations • 6 minutes
• Qualitative Research in the World • 3 minutes
• Saplings in the Hurricane • 6 minutes
• The LGBTQ Closet • 6 minutes
• Living With Very High Empathy • 6 minutes

11 assignments • Total 54 minutes

• Check Your Understanding: The Nature of Qualitative Research • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: An Example of Qualitative Research • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Foundations of Qualitative Research • 3 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Philosophical Underpinnings of Qualitative Research • 3 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Interpretive Frameworks Self-Assessment • 3 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Interpretive Frameworks • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Reviewing Philosophical Assumptions and Interpretive Frameworks • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Saplings in the Hurricane • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: The LGBTQ Closet • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Living With Very High Empathy • 5 minutes
• Module Quiz: Introduction to Qualitative Research • 10 minutes

Standards of Rigor in Qualitative Research

In the world of qualitative research, notions like validity and reliability often take on new forms. Researchers must not project one set of traditional meanings onto another, in that you cannot analyze qualitative research by quantitative standards. So what do we mean by qualitative standards of rigor? It is about making certain that the qualitative process and outcomes emulate participants’ lived experiences.

1 video 6 readings 9 assignments

1 video • Total 3 minutes

• Digging Deeper: Researcher Positioning • 3 minutes • Preview module

6 readings • Total 38 minutes

• Four Perspectives • 7 minutes
• A Case Study in Trustworthiness • 6 minutes
• Seven Approaches to Trustworthiness • 10 minutes
• Trustworthiness Perspectives and Strategies • 5 minutes
• Our Limited View of the World • 2 minutes
• Our Limited View of the World, continued • 8 minutes

9 assignments • Total 50 minutes

• Check Your Understanding: Four Perspectives • 4 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: A Case Study in Trustworthiness • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Strategies to Promote Trustworthiness • 5 minutes
• Check Your Understanding: Applying Strategies to Promote Trustworthiness • 3 minutes
• Practice One • 8 minutes
• Practice Two • 5 minutes
• Practice Three • 5 minutes
• Practice Four • 5 minutes
• Module Quiz: Standards of Rigor in Qualitative Research • 10 minutes

Cumulative Quiz

Complete the final course assessment.

1 reading 1 assignment

1 reading • Total 2 minutes

• References • 2 minutes

1 assignment • Total 10 minutes

• Cumulative Quiz: What is Qualitative Research? • 10 minutes

PsycLearn Essentials APA Student Resources

This module provides a variety of information and tools from the American Psychological Association (APA) that will help inspire you as you complete your coursework and plan your career goals. Get discounted access to Academic Writer, APA’s online tool for writing effectively, as well as valuable advice that will help you develop and strengthen your skillset for learning success and future employment. Additionally, explore resources on various psychological issues. This module also includes APA resources on scholarly research and writing; a list of sites providing valuable resources on diversity, equity, and inclusion in psychology education and in the professional community; resources on a career in psychology; and links to career opportunities at the APA. You can also view videos that offer tips on dealing with stress.

8 readings • Total 19 minutes

• Introduction to APA Resources • 5 minutes
• Student Resources • 2 minutes
• APA Style®, Research, and Writing • 2 minutes
• Students from Diverse Ethnic, Cultural, and Economic Backgrounds • 2 minutes
• Psychology Help Center • 2 minutes
• Psychology Careers • 2 minutes
• Careers and Internships at APA • 2 minutes
• Other APA Resources • 2 minutes

APA is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 146,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students as its members. Its mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives.

Recommended if you're interested in Psychology

American Psychological Association

Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology

Specialization

Observational Methods and Qualitative Data Analysis

Interviewing Methods

Universidades Anáhuac

Digital Shield: Cybersecurity for Data and System Protection

Why people choose coursera for their career.

New to Psychology? Start here.

Open new doors with Coursera Plus

Unlimited access to 7,000+ world-class courses, hands-on projects, and job-ready certificate programs - all included in your subscription

Advance your career with an online degree

Earn a degree from world-class universities - 100% online

Join over 3,400 global companies that choose Coursera for Business

Upskill your employees to excel in the digital economy

Frequently asked questions

When will i have access to the lectures and assignments.

Access to lectures and assignments depends on your type of enrollment. If you take a course in audit mode, you will be able to see most course materials for free. To access graded assignments and to earn a Certificate, you will need to purchase the Certificate experience, during or after your audit. If you don't see the audit option:

The course may not offer an audit option. You can try a Free Trial instead, or apply for Financial Aid.

The course may offer 'Full Course, No Certificate' instead. This option lets you see all course materials, submit required assessments, and get a final grade. This also means that you will not be able to purchase a Certificate experience.

What will I get if I subscribe to this Specialization?

When you enroll in the course, you get access to all of the courses in the Specialization, and you earn a certificate when you complete the work. Your electronic Certificate will be added to your Accomplishments page - from there, you can print your Certificate or add it to your LinkedIn profile. If you only want to read and view the course content, you can audit the course for free.

What is the refund policy?

If you subscribed, you get a 7-day free trial during which you can cancel at no penalty. After that, we don’t give refunds, but you can cancel your subscription at any time. See our full refund policy Opens in a new tab .

Is financial aid available?

Yes. In select learning programs, you can apply for financial aid or a scholarship if you can’t afford the enrollment fee. If fin aid or scholarship is available for your learning program selection, you’ll find a link to apply on the description page.

More questions

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Qualitative Research

What is qualitative research.

Qualitative research is the methodology researchers use to gain deep contextual understandings of users via non-numerical means and direct observations. Researchers focus on smaller user samples—e.g., in interviews—to reveal data such as user attitudes, behaviors and hidden factors: insights which guide better designs.

“ There are also unknown unknowns, things we don’t know we don’t know.” — Donald Rumsfeld, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense

• Transcript loading…

See how you can use qualitative research to expose hidden truths about users and iteratively shape better products.

Qualitative Research Focuses on the “Why”

Qualitative research is a subset of user experience (UX) research and user research . By doing qualitative research, you aim to gain narrowly focused but rich information about why users feel and think the ways they do. Unlike its more statistics-oriented “counterpart”, quantitative research , qualitative research can help expose hidden truths about your users’ motivations, hopes, needs, pain points and more to help you keep your project’s focus on track throughout development. UX design professionals do qualitative research typically from early on in projects because—since the insights they reveal can alter product development dramatically—they can prevent costly design errors from arising later. Compare and contrast qualitative with quantitative research here:

Qualitative research

Quantitative Research

You Aim to Determine

The “why” – to get behind how users approach their problems in their world

The “what”, “where” & “when” of the users’ needs & problems – to help keep your project’s focus on track during development

Loosely structured (e.g., contextual inquiries) – to learn why users behave how they do & explore their opinions

Highly structured (e.g., surveys) – to gather data about what users do & find patterns in large user groups

Number of Representative Users

Often around 5

Ideally 30+

Level of Contact with Users

More direct & less remote (e.g., usability testing to examine users’ stress levels when they use your design)

Less direct & more remote (e.g., analytics)

Statistically

You need to take great care with handling non-numerical data (e.g., opinions), as your own opinions might influence findings

Reliable – given enough test users

Regarding care with opinions, it’s easy to be subjective about qualitative data, which isn’t as comprehensively analyzable as quantitative data. That’s why design teams also apply quantitative research methods, to reinforce the “why” with the “what”.

Qualitative Research Methods You Can Use to Get Behind Your Users

You have a choice of many methods to help gain the clearest insights into your users’ world – which you might want to complement with quantitative research methods. In iterative processes such as user-centered design , you/your design team would use quantitative research to spot design problems, discover the reasons for these with qualitative research, make changes and then test your improved design on users again. The best method/s to pick will depend on the stage of your project and your objectives. Here are some:

Diary studies – You ask users to document their activities, interactions, etc. over a defined period. This empowers users to deliver context-rich information. Although such studies can be subjective—since users will inevitably be influenced by in-the-moment human issues and their emotions—they’re helpful tools to access generally authentic information.

Structured – You ask users specific questions and analyze their responses with other users’.

Semi-structured – You have a more free-flowing conversation with users, but still follow a prepared script loosely.

Ethnographic – You interview users in their own environment to appreciate how they perform tasks and view aspects of tasks.

Usability testing

Moderated – In-person testing in, e.g., a lab.

Unmoderated – Users complete tests remotely: e.g., through a video call.

Guerrilla – “Down-the-hall”/“down-and-dirty” testing on a small group of random users or colleagues.

User observation – You watch users get to grips with your design and note their actions, words and reactions as they attempt to perform tasks.

Qualitative research can be more or less structured depending on the method.

Qualitative Research – How to Get Reliable Results

Some helpful points to remember are:

Participants – Select a number of test users carefully (typically around 5). Observe the finer points such as body language. Remember the difference between what they do and what they say they do.

Moderated vs. unmoderated – You can obtain the richest data from moderated studies, but these can involve considerable time and practice. You can usually conduct unmoderated studies more quickly and cheaply, but you should plan these carefully to ensure instructions are clear, etc.

Types of questions – You’ll learn far more by asking open-ended questions. Avoid leading users’ answers – ask about their experience during, say, the “search for deals” process rather than how easy it was. Try to frame questions so users respond honestly: i.e., so they don’t withhold grievances about their experience because they don’t want to seem impolite. Distorted feedback may also arise in guerrilla testing, as test users may be reluctant to sound negative or to discuss fine details if they lack time.

Location – Think how where users are might affect their performance and responses. If, for example, users’ tasks involve running or traveling on a train, select the appropriate method (e.g., diary studies for them to record aspects of their experience in the environment of a train carriage and the many factors impacting it).

Overall, no single research method can help you answer all your questions. Nevertheless, The Nielsen Norman Group advise that if you only conduct one kind of user research, you should pick qualitative usability testing, since a small sample size can yield many cost- and project-saving insights. Always treat users and their data ethically. Finally, remember the importance of complementing qualitative methods with quantitative ones: You gain insights from the former; you test those using the latter.

Learn More about Qualitative Research

Take our course on User Research to see how to get the most from qualitative research.

Read about the numerous considerations for qualitative research in this in-depth piece.

This blog discusses the importance of qualitative research , with tips.

Explore additional insights into qualitative research here .

Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift

What is the primary focus of qualitative research in user experience?

• To determine statistical significance of user behavior
• To explore user behaviors and motivations in-depth
• To quantify user interaction across multiple platforms

How many participants typically participate in qualitative research studies?

• About 5 to allow in-depth exploration
• Between 30 and 50 for moderate generalization
• Over 100 to guarantee statistical reliability

Which method do researchers often use in qualitative research to understand user experiences in their natural environment?

• Ethnographic interviews
• Laboratory experiments
• Online surveys

What characterizes the analysis of data in qualitative research?

• Simple tabulation of numeric responses
• Statistical analysis of large data sets
• Thematic analysis of detailed descriptions

What is a common challenge researchers face when they conduct qualitative research?

• The ability to obtain a large enough sample size for statistical analysis.
• The ability to remain objective and avoid bias in data interpretation.
• The ability to use advanced statistical tools to analyze data.

Better luck next time!

Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now

Congratulations! You did amazing

You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.

Check Your Inbox

We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .

Literature on Qualitative Research

Here’s the entire UX literature on Qualitative Research by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Qualitative Research

Take a deep dive into Qualitative Research with our course User Research – Methods and Best Practices .

How do you plan to design a product or service that your users will love , if you don't know what they want in the first place? As a user experience designer, you shouldn't leave it to chance to design something outstanding; you should make the effort to understand your users and build on that knowledge from the outset. User research is the way to do this, and it can therefore be thought of as the largest part of user experience design .

In fact, user research is often the first step of a UX design process—after all, you cannot begin to design a product or service without first understanding what your users want! As you gain the skills required, and learn about the best practices in user research, you’ll get first-hand knowledge of your users and be able to design the optimal product—one that’s truly relevant for your users and, subsequently, outperforms your competitors’ .

This course will give you insights into the most essential qualitative research methods around and will teach you how to put them into practice in your design work. You’ll also have the opportunity to embark on three practical projects where you can apply what you’ve learned to carry out user research in the real world . You’ll learn details about how to plan user research projects and fit them into your own work processes in a way that maximizes the impact your research can have on your designs. On top of that, you’ll gain practice with different methods that will help you analyze the results of your research and communicate your findings to your clients and stakeholders—workshops, user journeys and personas, just to name a few!

By the end of the course, you’ll have not only a Course Certificate but also three case studies to add to your portfolio. And remember, a portfolio with engaging case studies is invaluable if you are looking to break into a career in UX design or user research!

We believe you should learn from the best, so we’ve gathered a team of experts to help teach this course alongside our own course instructors. That means you’ll meet a new instructor in each of the lessons on research methods who is an expert in their field—we hope you enjoy what they have in store for you!

All open-source articles on Qualitative Research

How to do a thematic analysis of user interviews.

• 1.2k shares
• 3 years ago

How to Visualize Your Qualitative User Research Results for Maximum Impact

Creating Personas from User Research Results

Best Practices for Qualitative User Research

Card Sorting

Contextual Interviews and How to Handle Them

Understand the User’s Perspective through Research for Mobile UX

Ethnography

7 simple ways to get better results from ethnographic research.

Semi-structured qualitative studies

Pros and cons of conducting user interviews.

Workshops to Establish Empathy and Understanding from User Research Results

How to Moderate User Interviews

• 4 years ago

Question Everything

Adding Quality to Your Design Research with an SSQS Checklist

• 8 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

Quantitative and Qualitative Research

• I NEED TO . . .
• What is Quantitative Research?
• What is Qualitative Research?
• Quantitative vs Qualitative
• Step 1: Accessing CINAHL
• Step 2: Create a Keyword Search
• Step 3: Create a Subject Heading Search
• Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Second Concept
• Step 5: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Quantitative Terms
• Step 6: Combining All Searches
• Step 7: Adding Limiters
• Step 8: Save Your Search!
• What Kind of Article is This?
• More Research Help This link opens in a new window

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is a process of naturalistic inquiry that seeks an in-depth understanding of social phenomena within their natural setting. It focuses on the "why" rather than the "what" of social phenomena and relies on the direct experiences of human beings as meaning-making agents in their every day lives. Rather than by logical and statistical procedures, qualitative researchers use multiple systems of inquiry for the study of human phenomena including biography, case study, historical analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology.

University of Utah College of Nursing, (n.d.). What is qualitative research? [Guide] Retrieved from  https://nursing.utah.edu/research/qualitative-research/what-is-qualitative-research.php#what 

The following video will explain the fundamentals of qualitative research.

• << Previous: What is Quantitative Research?
• Next: Quantitative vs Qualitative >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 3:46 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/quantitative_and_qualitative_research

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Qualitative Study

Affiliations.

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

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

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

However, while qualitative research is sometimes placed in opposition to quantitative research, where they are necessarily opposites and therefore "compete" against each other and the philosophical paradigms associated with each other, qualitative and quantitative work are neither necessarily opposites, nor are they incompatible. While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites and certainly not mutually exclusive. For instance, qualitative research can help expand and deepen understanding of data or results obtained from quantitative analysis. For example, say a quantitative analysis has determined a correlation between length of stay and level of patient satisfaction, but why does this correlation exist? This dual-focus scenario shows one way in which qualitative and quantitative research could be integrated.

Copyright © 2024, StatPearls Publishing LLC.

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

Publication types

• Study Guide

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative?

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Qualitative Research?

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

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

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative Methods

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

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

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

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative Data Analysis

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

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

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

Key Features

• Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the field, in natural surroundings. The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
• Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
• The qualitative researcher is an integral part of the data; without the active participation of the researcher, no data exists.
• The study’s design evolves during the research and can be adjusted or changed as it progresses. For the qualitative researcher, there is no single reality. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.
• The theory is data-driven and emerges as part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

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

Advantages of Qualitative Research

• Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider’s view of the field. This allows the researcher to find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic inquiries.
• Qualitative descriptions can be important in suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects, and dynamic processes.
• Qualitative analysis allows for ambiguities/contradictions in the data, which reflect social reality (Denscombe, 2010).
• Qualitative research uses a descriptive, narrative style; this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

What Is Quantitative Research?

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

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

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

Quantitative Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantitative Data Analysis

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

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

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

Limitations of Quantitative Research

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

Advantages of Quantitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Information

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

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2019
• Volume 42 , pages 139–160, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
• Ugo Corte 3  

605k Accesses

294 Citations

24 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling.

Sampling Techniques for Quantitative Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

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

Qualitative and Quantitative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grounded Theory

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

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

Defining Qualitative Research

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

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

Distinctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improved Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.

Google Scholar  

Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.

Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.

Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .

Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.

Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.

Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.

Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.

Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.

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

Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.

Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.

James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.

Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.

Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.

Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .

Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.

Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.

Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.

McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.

Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf

Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).

Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.

Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.

Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.

Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.

Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.

Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.

Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.

Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.

Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.

Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Patrik Aspers

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Download citation

Published : 27 February 2019

Issue Date : 01 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Epistemology
• Philosophy of science
• Phenomenology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

11 Types of qualitative research marketers navigate every day

Types of qualitative research methods, when to conduct qualitative research, get the best of both worlds with attest market research platform.

Is your marketing or product development a bit weak and under the weather, or isn’t it as punchy as it used to be? Qualitative research might just be the pick-me-up it needs. Now, not just any type of qualitative market research (it’s not some magic cure-all). You need to pick the right type of qualitative research — and we’re here to help you do that.

But what you need to know about qualitative research at its core, is that it’s about exploring the qualities and nuances of human behavior and preferences. Using discussions, observations, and analysis, you try to uncover not just what people do, but why they do it.

Conducting qualitative research provides you with rich, detailed feedback that gives depth to – and compliments – quantitative research, and can help you formulate direct actions to take. Here’s which qualitative methods we’ll be exploring today.

• Focus groups
• Observation
• Content analysis 
• Narrative analysis
• Historical records management and case studies
• Ethnographic research
• Phenomenological research
• Grounded theory method
• Action research

1. Qualitative research surveys

Surveys are great for tapping into the minds of your audience: you can ask direct questions to gather feedback on everything, in a variety of formats.

With the flexibility to reach a broad audience and the ability to tailor your questions for specific insights, surveys are one of the most used tools for gathering qualitative data at scale, and in record speed.

• Collect feedback from a wide range of participants quickly.
• Tailor surveys to explore various aspects of consumer behavior, from product preferences to brand perception.
• Compared to other qualitative methods, surveys are relatively low-cost and can be distributed widely with minimal resources.

Challenges and solutions:

• Formulating questions that get deep, meaningful responses can be tricky. Focus on open-ended questions and avoid leading or biased phrasing.
• Keeping respondents interested and encouraging thoughtful responses is tricky. Offer incentives and ensure the survey is quick and clear to boost engagement and completion rates.
• The pile of qualitative data from open-ended survey responses can be a lot to work through, xo make sure you’re prepped for your qualitative data analysis.

When to use:

Use surveys to explore consumer sentiments, identify unmet needs and pain points, and evaluate what drives brand loyalty.

Send out survey questions and collect written answers or even video responses with Attest . Our platform takes care of everything, from survey templates to get you started, to best-in-class research advice to help you run truly great research.

See how qual research with Attest works

You can get high-quality video responses from your target audiences with Attest, and our team of research pros is on hand to help you run awesome research

2. Interviews

If you want to go deep, and not necessarily get a lot of data from different participants, interviews are your thing. By sitting down for a one-on-one with people from your target audience you can gather detailed feedback and personal stories

• You can follow the conversation wherever it leads, asking follow-up questions that bring out detailed or surprising insights.
• Human-to-human interactions can lead to more genuine responses, giving you a clearer picture of your audience.
• Interviews take a lot of time to conduct and analyze. Using transcription software and focusing your questions can speed things up.
• People might tell you what they think you want to hear. Make sure you create a comfortable setting and assure anonymity to encourage brutal honesty and fight bias.
• Data from interviews can be hard to compare. Sticking to a set of core questions while allowing for (controlled) personal exploration can help.

Use Interviews for qualitative research when developing new products or features to deeply understand user needs and reactions, and for branding or campaigns to gather stories and emotions that tie people to your brand, enriching your next marketing initiative.

3. Focus groups

Learn to read the room. Focus groups bring together a small group of people from your target market to discuss their opinions and experiences regarding your product or service. The setup of these groups often encourages participants to share their thoughts and ideas.

• Bringing together a variety of viewpoints and hearing how they compare to each other helps you understand the nuances of your target audience.
• Group discussions can lead to surprising angles and new insights into consumer attitudes and perceptions that individual interviews may not capture.
• Participants might sway towards consensus opinions. Encouraging open dialogue and using a skilled moderator can help avoid this. And make sure your group is diverse enough as well.
• Individuals can be overlooked in group settings. Feel like some voices are overpowering? Complement focus groups with one-on-one interviews for deeper insights.
• Organizing focus groups is pretty resource-intensive. Virtual focus groups or streamlined in-person sessions are more flexible.

Use focus groups for brand perception studies to delve into group discussions about your brand and for concept testing to gather immediate reactions to new product ideas, packaging, or marketing strategies.

4. Observation

Watching how people interact with your product or service in their natural environment (in person or through video recordings), without interference, is a great way to get real-life insights into user behavior, preferences, and potential improvements that might not be revealed through direct questioning.

• Beat assumptions and get a contextual understanding of how people interact with your product or service in real-world settings.
• Body language and other non-verbal signals can tell you a lot about how consumers feel when handling your product.
• the presence of an observer might make people change their behavior. Unobtrusive methods like video recording can help avoid that.
• Observers might interpret actions through their own bias. Make sure they are well-trained to avoid this, and that you work with multiple observers to compare interpretations.
• Translating observations into actionable data can be challenging. Structured observation guides and analytical frameworks can streamline your analysis.

Use Observation for user experience research to see how people interact with your product in real settings and for environmental impact studies to understand how different environments influence consumer behavior towards your brand.

5. Content analysis 

The words, images or videos related to your brand or product that people create and share tell a story. With content analysis, you collect all these elements and try to find themes, patterns or issues that stand out.

• You don’t have to worry about getting brand-new data in, which also makes it a more cost-effective and sometimes faster qualitative research method.
• With social listening and content analysis, you can identify emerging trends early in. All you need to do is really zoom in.
• The amount of available content is probably going to be overwhelming, but there are plenty of software tools for sentiment analysis out there that do the heavy lifting for you.
• Unhappy customers might be louder than the happy ones, so the content might not represent the broader audience. Balance your content analysis with direct research methods like surveys or interviews to mitigate this bias.

Use content analysis for uncovering insights into brand perception and evaluating the impact of marketing campaigns on public sentiment through social media content analysis.

6. Narrative analysis

Narrative analysis delves into the stories people tell about their experiences with your product or service. It focuses on understanding the sequence of events, the context, and the emotional journeys described by consumers.

• Unpacks the emotional journey and personal experiences of consumers, offering a rich understanding of their relationship with your product or service.
• By analyzing stories, you capture not just the facts but the context around consumer decisions and experiences, revealing deeper motivations.
• Stories often reflect broader cultural and social influences, helping you see how these factors impact consumer behavior.
• Personal biases can influence how narratives are interpreted. Establishing a clear analytical framework and involving multiple analysts can reduce bias.
• Narrative analysis can be detail-oriented and time-consuming. Using software to assist in data coding and thematic analysis can streamline the process.
• It can be challenging to ensure that the narratives collected are directly relevant to your research questions. Carefully designing the prompt and selection criteria for participants can help focus the stories gathered.

Use narrative analysis to map out detailed consumer journeys from first awareness to loyalty and to craft compelling brand stories that resonate deeply with your audience.

7. Historical records management and case studies

This method involves analyzing existing documents and records related to your market or industry, and conducting case studies on specific examples within your field. You look at historical trends, previous campaigns, product launches, and customer feedback over time, providing a context for current market dynamics and guiding future strategies.

• Offers a perspective on how consumer behaviors and market trends have evolved, giving you context for current data.
• You can measure the impact of changes or interventions tend to make in your marketing strategy or product development.
• Historical records may be scattered or difficult to access, so digitize records and maintain a centralized database now for future researchers.
• Ensuring that historical data is still relevant to current contexts can be challenging, so regularly update your data collection and analysis methods to reflect current market conditions.

Use historical records management and case studies for analyzing long-term market trends, assessing the effectiveness of marketing campaigns over time, and understanding the evolution of product life cycles influenced by consumer preferences.

8. Ethnographic research

Ethnographic research immerses you in the everyday lives of your target audience, observing them in their natural settings to understand their behaviors, rituals, and the social context of product usage. This gives you culturally grounded insights into how and why your product fits into consumers’ lives.

• By observing people in their natural environments, you get to see how they genuinely interact with products or services, unfiltered by self-reporting biases.
• You get detailed descriptions of people’s lives and interactions, and much more nuanced insights than numbers and charts.
• You’ll need significant time in the field and enough resources to do it right. Streamlining focus areas and using digital tools for data collection can help manage the workload.
• Immersion in a community or culture can lead to biased perspectives. Regular reflection sessions and involving multiple researchers can help maintain a balanced viewpoint.

Use ethnographic research to understand how user environments and cultures affect product use, tailor offerings for specific markets or cultural groups, and innovate with designs centered on real-world user behavior.

9. Phenomenological research

Phenomenological research focuses on the lived experiences of individuals regarding a particular phenomenon. Through in-depth interviews and discussions, you gather detailed personal accounts, looking for the underlying meanings and emotions attached to experiences with your product or service.

• It centers on the lived experiences of users, giving you a true-to-life image of understanding their needs, desires, and motivations.
• Captures the essence of consumer experiences, delivering authentic insights that can guide more empathetic and effective marketing strategies.
• The depth of phenomenological data can make analysis challenging. Working with thematic analysis and seeking expert advice can make it more manageable.
• Finding participants willing to share deeply personal experiences may be difficult. Offer assurances of confidentiality and create a safe, respectful environment.

Use phenomenological research to dive deep into the emotions and experiences of new market segments, refine user experiences for greater satisfaction, and create brand messages that forge stronger emotional connections with your audience.

10. Grounded theory method

The grounded theory method starts with data collection without a predefined hypothesis, allowing theories to emerge from the data itself. Through continuous comparison of data from interviews, surveys, or observations, you develop a theory that explains a particular aspect of consumer behavior or market trends.

• Exploring data without preconceived theories is ideal for uncovering fresh insights and new perspectives on consumer behavior.
• Based on the data, you can develop theories that explain patterns and relationships within your market, setting up a strong foundation for strategic decisions.
• As data collection and analysis proceed in tandem, you can refine your research focus based on emerging insights, ensuring the relevance and depth of findings.
• The open-ended nature of grounded theory means you’ll get piles of data. Using software for data management and employing selective sampling techniques to focus the research.
• The iterative process of coding and recoding data to develop a theory is complex. Training in grounded theory methods and regular team discussions can help clarify the process.

Use the grounded theory method to innovate products, tackle complex consumer issues, and craft strategies that deeply align with consumer preferences and behaviors.

11. Action research

Action research is a participatory method where researchers work alongside participants to identify and solve problems or improve practices. In the context of market research, it could involve collaborating with consumers to co-create solutions or enhance product design.

• Findings and insights can be applied in real-time, allowing for fast adjustments to products, services, or marketing strategies.
• Active involvement from participants, leads to a deeper engagement with your brand and a sense of ownership over the solutions developed.
• Balancing the input and engagement of participants without overwhelming them can be challenging. Set clear expectations and provide structured feedback.
• The focus on immediate solutions might overlook deeper, underlying issues. Supplement with other qualitative methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding.
• The cyclical nature of action research, with its continuous cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, requires dedication and flexibility. Agile project management techniques can keep the project on track.

Use action research to develop products informed by user feedback, enhance customer experiences through targeted improvements, and strengthen relationships with communities or stakeholders through collaborative engagement.

Conduct qualitative research when you need in-depth understanding of consumer attitudes, feelings, or behaviors—areas where quantitative research’s numbers and statistics can’t provide the full picture.

Qualitative research is best used in tandem with quantitative research – they really do compliment each other. You can use qualitative research to help inspire you at the beginning of a project, or to flesh out ideas that emerge during preceding quantitative research.

It’s especially useful for exploring new concepts, enhancing product development, or deepening brand engagement, complementing quantitative data by adding context and depth to the insights gained.

With Attest’s market research platform, you can seamlessly blend qualitative and quantitative data, giving you the insights you need for smarter marketing and better product development. See how Attest is helping businesses in a variety of industries to better understand their audiences.

Andrada Comsa

Principal Customer Research Manager 

Related articles

6 qualitative data examples for thorough market researchers, making it personal – using tech to build connections with consumers | diageo, panel discussion – future-proofing your brand with consumer insights, subscribe to our newsletter.

Fill in your email and we’ll drop fresh insights and events info into your inbox each week.

* I agree to receive communications from Attest. Privacy Policy .

You're now subscribed to our mailing list to receive exciting news, reports, and other updates!

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
• Perspect Clin Res
• v.4(3); Jul-Sep 2013

Qualitative research

Vibha pathak.

Department of Clinical Research, Bharti Hospital and BRIDE, Karnal, Haryana, India

Bijayini Jena

1 Department of Nutrition, Bharti Hospital and BRIDE, Karnal, Haryana, India

Sanjay Kalra

2 Department of Endocrinology, Bharti Hospital and BRIDE, Karnal, Haryana, India

Scientific research is based upon finding a solution to a particular problem one can identify. There are various methods of formulating a research design for the study. Two broad approaches of data collection and interpretation in research are qualitative and quantitative research. The elementary method of conducting research was quantitative, but recently, qualitative method of research has also gained momentum among researchers.

Qualitative research focuses in understanding a research query as a humanistic or idealistic approach. Though quantitative approach is a more reliable method as it is based upon numeric and methods that can be made objectively and propagated by other researchers. Qualitative method is used to understand people's beliefs, experiences, attitudes, behavior, and interactions. It generates non-numerical data. The integration of qualitative research into intervention studies is a research strategy that is gaining increased attention across disciplines. Although once viewed as philosophically incongruent with experimental research, qualitative research is now recognized for its ability to add a new dimension to interventional studies that cannot be obtained through measurement of variables alone.[ 1 ] Qualitative research was initially used in psychological studies when researchers found it tedious to evaluate human behavior in numeric. Since then, qualitative research is used in other research fields as well. In clinical research, qualitative approach can help view the data more extensively. It strengthens clinical trials by enhancing user involvement in it.

Three broad categories of qualitative research of interest exists in clinical research: Observational studies, interview studies and documentary/textual analysis of various written records.[ 2 ] Qualitative research gives voice to the participants in the study.[ 1 ] It permits the participants to share their experiences of the effects of the drug of interest. This can open our eyes to new aspects of the study and help modify the design of the clinical trial. Qualitative study enhances the involvement of everyone related to the study. The researcher works on the social parameters in addition to the quantitative measures in the study. The subjects also have an empowering experience in the study. They have an active role in the study and can voice their individual benefits and harms of the study. In addition, with qualitative methods, the relationship between the researcher and the participant is often less formal than in quantitative research.

Qualitative research can have a major contribution in health research. In clinical trials, qualitative research can have a great impact on data collection, its analysis and the interpretation of results. Qualitative studies should be well-designed and the aims, procedures of the study should be meticulously adjudicated. Study should have pre-determined methods to nullify research bias. When combined with quantitative measures, qualitative study can give a better understanding of health related issues. The perspectives in clinical research should highlight advances in qualitative research as well, to optimize quality and utility of this method of research.

• Open access
• Published: 29 May 2024

The implementation of person-centred plans in the community-care sector: a qualitative study of organizations in Ontario, Canada

• Samina Idrees 1 ,
• Gillian Young 1 ,
• Brian Dunne 2 ,
• Donnie Antony 2 ,
• Leslie Meredith 1 &
• Maria Mathews 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  680 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

324 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Person-centred planning refers to a model of care in which programs and services are developed in collaboration with persons receiving care (i.e., persons-supported) and tailored to their unique needs and goals. In recent decades, governments around the world have enacted policies requiring community-care agencies to adopt an individualized or person-centred approach to service delivery. Although regional mandates provide a framework for directing care, it is unclear how this guidance is implemented in practice given the diversity and range of organizations within the sector. This study aims to address a gap in the literature by describing how person-centred care plans are implemented in community-care organizations.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with administrators from community-care organizations in Ontario, Canada. We asked participants about their organization’s approach to developing and updating person-centred care plans, including relevant supports and barriers. We analyzed the data thematically using a pragmatic, qualitative, descriptive approach.

We interviewed administrators from 12 community-care organizations. We identified three overarching categories or processes related to organizational characteristics and person-centred planning: (1) organizational context, (2) organizational culture, and (3) the design and delivery of person-centred care plans. The context of care and the types of services offered by the organization were directly informed by the needs and characteristics of the population served. The culture of the organization (e.g., their values, attitudes and beliefs surrounding persons-supported) was a key influence in the development and implementation of person-centred care plans. Participants described the person-centred planning process as being iterative and collaborative, involving initial and continued consultations with persons-supported and their close family and friends, while also citing implementation challenges in cases where persons had difficulty communicating, and in cases where they preferred not to have a formal plan in place.

Conclusions

The person-centred planning process is largely informed by organizational context and culture. There are ongoing challenges in the implementation of person-centred care plans, highlighting a gap between policy and practice and suggesting a need for comprehensive guidance and enhanced adaptability in current regulations. Policymakers, administrators, and service providers can leverage these insights to refine policies, advocating for inclusive, flexible approaches that better align with diverse community needs.

Peer Review reports

The community-care sector facilitates the coordination and administration of in-home and community-based health and social services. Community-care services include supports for independent living, residential services, complex medical care, and community-participation services to support personal and professional goals (e.g., education, employment, and recreation-based supports) [ 1 ]. There is substantial heterogeneity in the clinical and demographic characteristics of the community-care population, including individuals with physical and developmental disabilities, and complex medical needs [ 2 ]. We refer to the individuals served by these organizations as ‘persons-supported’ in line with person-first language conventions [ 3 , 4 ].

In recent decades, governments across the world have enacted policies requiring community-care agencies to adopt an individualized or person-centred approach to service delivery [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Person-centred care encompasses a broad framework designed to direct care delivery, as opposed to a singular standardized process. In the context of community-care, person-centred planning refers to a model of care provision in which programs and services are developed in collaboration with persons-supported and tailored to their unique needs and desired outcomes [ 9 , 10 ].

In Ontario, Canada, community-care services are funded by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (MCCSS). Service agreements between these ministries and individual agencies can be complex and contingent on different factors including compliance with a number of regulatory items and policies [ 7 , 11 ]. MOH provides funding for health-based services including in-home physiotherapy, respiratory therapy, and personal support services, among several others. MOH funds Home and Community Care Support Services (HCCSS), a network of organizations responsible for coordinating the delivery of in-home and community-based care in the province. MCCSS funds social service agencies including those providing community participation and residential support for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs).

Several tools and resources have been developed to aid organizations in providing person-centred care and organizations may differ in their use of these tools and their specific approach. Although regional mandates provide a framework for directing care delivery, it is unclear how this guidance is implemented in practice given the diversity and range of organizations within the sector. In addition, as noted by a recent scoping review, there is limited literature on the implementation process and impact of person-centred planning on individual outcomes [ 12 ]. Using a pragmatic, qualitative, descriptive approach [ 13 ], we outline how community-care organizations enact a person-centred approach to care and the factors that shape their enactment. By describing existing practices in the context of the community-care sector, we aim to provide insight on how to optimize care delivery to improve outcomes and inform current policy. This study is part of a larger, multi-methods project examining the implementation of person-centred care plans in the community-care sector. This project encompasses qualitative interviews with representatives from different community-care organizations, as well as staff and persons-supported at a partner community-care organization. This paper focuses on analyzing data from interviews with representatives from different community-care organizations.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with administrators from community-care organizations in Southwestern Ontario (roughly the Ontario Health West Region) between October 2022 and January 2023. We included community-care organizations funded by MOH or MCCSS. We excluded organizations that did not provide services in Southwestern Ontario. We identified eligible organizations and participants by searching online databases, including community resource lists, as well as through consultation with members of the research team.

We used maximum variation sampling [ 14 ], to recruit participants from organizations with a wide range of characteristics including location (i.e., urban, rural), organization type (i.e., for-profit, not-for-profit), and types of services provided (e.g., residential, recreation, transportation, etc.) We contacted eligible organizations via email, providing them with study information and inviting them to participate. We recruited until the data reached saturation, defined as the point at which there was sufficient data to enable rigorous analysis [ 14 , 15 ].

In each interview, we asked participants about their organization’s approach to developing and updating individual service agreements or person-centred care plans, and the supports and barriers (e.g., organizational, funding, staffing, etc.) that facilitate or hinder the implementation of these plans (Supplementary Material 1 : Interview Guide). We also collected information on relevant participant and organizational characteristics, including participant gender, position, years of experience, organization location, type (i.e., for-profit, not-for-profit), services offered, years in operation, and client load. The interviews were approximately one hour in length and conducted virtually via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications Inc.) or by telephone. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviewer field notes were also used in data analysis.

We analyzed the data thematically [ 16 ]. The coding process followed a collaborative and multi-step approach. Initially, three members of the research team independently reviewed and coded a selection of transcripts to identify key ideas and patterns in the data, and form a preliminary coding template. We then met to consolidate individual coding efforts. We compared coding of each transcript, resolving conflicts through discussion and consensus. In coding subsequent transcripts and through a series of meetings, we worked together to finalize the codebook to reflect more analytic codes. We used the finalized template to code all interview transcripts in NVivo (QSR International), a software designed to facilitate qualitative data analysis. We refined the codebook on an as-needed basis by incorporating novel insights gleaned from the coding of additional transcripts, reflecting the iterative nature of the analysis.

We increased the robustness of our methodology by pre-testing interview questions, documenting interview and transcription protocols, using experienced interviewers, and confirming meaning with participants in interviews [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. We kept detailed records of interviews, field notes, and drafts of the coding template. We made efforts to identify negative cases and provided rich descriptions and illustrative quotes [ 17 ]. We included individuals directly involved in the administration of community-care services on our research team. These individuals provided important context and feedback at each stage of the research process.

This study was approved by the research ethics board at Western University. We obtained informed consent from participants prior to the onset of interviews. We maintained confidentiality through secure storage of interview data (e.g., audio recordings), password-protection of sensitive documents, and the de-identification of transcripts.

Positionality

The authors represent a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and community-care leaders. The community-care leaders and clinicians on our team provided key practical expertise to inform the development of interview questions and the analysis of study findings.

We interviewed administrators across 12 community-care organizations in Southwestern Ontario. The sample included representatives from seven organizations that received funding from MCCSS, three organizations that received funding from MOH, and two organizations that received funding from both MCCSS and MOH (Table  1 ). Eleven organizations were not-for-profit, one was a for-profit agency. The organizations provided care in rural ( n =  3), urban ( n =  4), or both rural and urban populations ( n =  5). Seven of the 12 participants were women, nine had been working with their organization for more than 11 years, and all had been working in the community-care sector for more than 12 years (Table  2 ).

We identified three key categories or processes relating to organizational characteristics and their impact on the design and delivery of person-centred care plans: (1) organizational context, (2) organizational culture, and (3) the development and implementation of person-centred care plans.

Organizational context

Organizational context refers to the characteristics of persons-supported, and the nature of services provided. Organizational context accounts for the considerable heterogeneity across organizations in the community-care sector and their approach to person-centred care plans.

Populations served

The majority of organizations included in the study supported individuals with IDDs: “all of the people have been identified as having a developmental disability. That’s part of the eligibility criteria for any funded developmental service in Ontario.” [P10]. Participants described how eligibility was ascertained through the referral process: “ the DSO [Developmental Services Ontario] figures all of that out and then refers them to us .” [P08]. These descriptions highlighted a common access point for publicly-funded adult developmental services in the province. Accordingly, these organizations were primarily funded by MCCSS. Other organizations focused on medically complex individuals including those with acquired brain injuries or those unable to access out-patient services due to physical disabilities: “the typical reason for referral is going to be around a physical impairment… But, with this medically complex population, you’re often seeing comorbidities where there may be some cognitive impairment, early dementia.” [P04]. In these organizations, eligibility and referral were usually coordinated by HCCSS. These insights highlighted the diverse characteristics of community-care populations, emphasizing the need to consider both physical and cognitive health challenges in care provision approaches.

Services offered

The characteristics of persons-supported informed the context of care and the type of services offered by the organization. The different dimensions of services offered within this sector include social and medical care, short and long-term care provision, in-home and community-care, and full and part-time care.

Nature of care: social vs. medical

Many organizations serving individuals with IDDs employed a holistic, psychosocial model of care, designed to support all areas of an individual’s life including supports for independent-living, and community-based education, employment, and recreation services to support personal and professional goals: “we support people in their homes, so residential supports. We also support people in the community, to be a part of the community, participate in the community and also to work in the community.” [P06]. These descriptions reflect a comprehensive approach to care, aiming to address needs within and beyond residential settings to promote active participation within the broader community. In contrast, some organizations followed a biomedical model of care, designed to support specific health needs: “We provide all five therapies… physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech, social work, and nutrition. In some locations we provide visiting nursing, at some locations shift nursing. We have some clinic-nursing… and we provide personal support and home-making services in a number of locations as well.” [P04]. These organizations adopted a more clinically-focused approach to care. In either instance, the care model and the nature of services offered were largely determined by an organization’s mandate including which gaps they aimed to fill within the community. Many organizations described providing a mixture of social and medical care for individuals with complex needs. However, the implementation of care plans could be impacted by the lack of integration between social and medical care sectors, as some participants spoke to the importance of “[integrating] all of the different healthcare sector services… [including] acute care and public health and home and community care and primary care, and mental health and addictions.” [P04].

Duration of care: short-term vs. long-term

The duration of care also varied based on the needs of persons-supported. Organizations serving individuals with IDDs usually offered support across the lifespan: “We support adults with developmental disabilities and we support them from 18 [years] up until the end of their life.” [P06]. Some organizations provided temporary supports aimed at addressing specific health needs: “For therapies – these are all short-term interventions and typically they’re very specific and focused on certain goals. And so, you may get a referral for physiotherapy that is authorized for three visits or five visits” [P04], or crisis situations (e.g., homelessness): “Our services are then brought in to help provide some level of support, guidance, stabilization resource, and once essentially sustainability and positive outcomes are achieved—then our services are immediately withdrawn.” [P12]. One organization employed a model of care with two service streams, an initial rehabilitation stream that was intended to be short-term and an ongoing service stream for individuals requiring continuing support.

In-home vs. community-based care

Many organizations provided in-home care and community-based supports, where residential supports were designed to help individuals lead independent lives, and community-based supports encouraged participation in community activities to further inclusion and address personal and professional goals. One participant spoke about the range of services offered in the home and community:

“There’s probably two big categories of [services we offer]: community support services—so that includes things like adult day programs, assisted living, meals on wheels, transportation, friendly visiting … and things like blood pressure clinics, exercise programs… and then on the other side we do home care services. In the home care basket, we provide personal support, and we also provide social work support.” [P05].

Likewise, another participant spoke in further detail on the types of services that allow individuals to live independently within their homes, or in community-based residential settings (e.g., long-term care facilities):

“We provide accommodation supports to about 100 people living in our community—which means that we will provide support to them in their own homes. So, anywhere from an hour a week to 24 hours a day. And that service can include things from personal care to home management to money management, cooking, cleaning, and being out and about in communities—so community participation. We also provide supports for about 50 people living in long-term care facilities and that is all community participation support. So, minus the last 2 and a half years because of the pandemic, what that means is that a person living in a long-term care facility with a developmental disability can have our support to get out and about for 2 or 3 hours a week, on average.” [P10].

Full-time vs. part-time support

The person-supported’s needs also determined whether they would receive care within their homes and if they would be supported on a full-time (i.e., 24 h a day, 7 days a week) or part-time basis:

“ It really does range from that intensive 24- hour/7 day a week support, which we actually do provide that level of intense support in the family home, if that’s needed. And then, all the way through to just occasional advocacy support and phone check-in.” [P01].

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture was described as a key influence in the development and implementation of person-centred care plans. The culture of the organization includes their perceptions, attitudes and beliefs surrounding persons-supported; their model of care provision; as well as their willingness to evolve and adapt service provision to optimize care delivery.

Perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding persons-supported

Participants described their organization’s view of persons-supported, with many organizations adopting an inclusionary framework where persons-supported were afforded the same rights and dignities as others in the community. This organizational philosophy was described as being deeply intertwined with an organization’s approach to personalizing programs and services:

“…an organization needs to be able to listen to the people who are receiving the service… and support them, to learn more, figure out, articulate, whatever it is, the service or the supports that they need in order to get and move forward with their life.” [P10].

The focus on the person-supported, their needs, likes, and dislikes, was echoed across organizations, with an emphasis on the impact of “culture and trying to embed for each person who delivers service the importance of understanding the individual.” [P05]. Participants also described their organization’s approach to allowing persons-supported to take risks, make mistakes, and live life on their own terms:

“You have to go and venture out and take some [risks]… We try to exercise that philosophy - people with disabilities should have the same rights and responsibilities as other people in the community. Whether that’s birthing or education, getting a job, having a house they can be proud of, accessing community supports, whether that be [a] library or community centre, or service club, whatever that is.” [P03].

Model of care provision

The model of care provision was heavily influenced by the organization’s values and philosophy. Several organizations employed a flexible model of care where supports were developed around the needs, preferences, and desired outcomes of the person-supported:

“…if we don’t offer [the program they want], we certainly build it. Honestly, most of our programs were either created or built by someone coming to us [and] saying ‘I want to do this with my life,’ or …‘my son would like to do art.’” [P02].

Although there were similarities in models across the different organizations, one participant noted that flexibility can be limited in the congregate care setting as staff must tend to the needs of a group as opposed to an individual:

“Our typical plan of operation outside of the congregate setting is we design services around the needs of the person. We don’t ask them to fit into what we need, we build services for what they need. Within the congregate care setting, we have a specific set of rules and regulations for safety and well-being of the other people that are here.” [P11].

Evolving service orientation

In organizations serving individuals with IDDs, many described shifting from program-based services to more individualized and community-based supports: “The goal was always to get people involved in their community and build in some of those natural supports … [we] are looking to support people in their own communities based on their individual plans.” [P07]. One participant described this model as a person-directed approach as opposed to person-centred, citing the limitations of program-based services in meeting individual needs:

“[Persons-supported] couldn’t [do] what they wanted because they were part of a bigger group. We would listen to the bigger group, but if one person didn’t want to go bowling … we couldn’t support them because everybody had to go bowling.” [P06].

The focus on individualized support could potentially lead to increased inclusion for persons-supported in their communities:

“… people go to Tim Horton’s, and if they go every day at 9 they probably, eventually will meet other people that go at 9 o’clock and maybe strike up a conversation and get to know somebody and join a table … and meet people in the community.” [P02].

By creating routines centred on individual preferences, the person-supported becomes a part of a community with shared interests and values.

Person-centred care plans

Community-care organizations enacted a person-centred approach by creating person-centred care plans for each person-supported. Although all participants said their organization provided person-centred services, there was considerable variation in the specific processes for developing, implementing, and updating care plans.

Developing a person-centred care plan

The development of a care plan includes assessment, consultation, and prioritization. The initial development of the care plan usually involved an assessment of an individual’s needs and goals. Participants described agency-specific assessment processes that often incorporated information from service referrals: “ In addition to the material we get from the DSO [Disability Services Ontario] we facilitate the delivery of an intake package specifically for our services. And that intake package helps to further understand the nature and needs of an individual.” [P12]. Agency-specific assessment processes differed by the nature of services provided and the characteristics of the population. However, most organizations included assessments of “not only physical functioning capabilities, but also cognitive.” [P01]. Assessment also included an appraisal of the suitability of the organization’s services. In instances where persons-supported were seeking residential placements or independent-living support, organizations assessed their ability to carry out the activities of daily living:

“[Our internal assessment] is an overview of all areas of their life. From, ‘do they need assistance with baking, cooking, groceries, cleaning, laundry? Is there going to be day program opportunities included in that residential request for placement? What the medical needs are?’” [P02].

In contrast, the person-supported’s community-based activities were primarily informed by their interests and desired outcomes: “We talk about what kinds of goals they want to work on. What kind of outcomes we’re looking for…” [P06].

The development of the care plan also included a consultation phase, involving conversations with the person-supported, their family members, and potentially external care providers: “We would use the application information, we’d use the supports intensity scale, but we’d also spend time with the person and their connections, their family and friends, in their home to figure out what are the kinds of things that this person needs assistance with.” [P10]. Participants described the person-supported’s view as taking precedence in these meetings: “We definitely include the family or [alternate] decision-maker in that plan, but the person-supported ultimately has the final stamp of approval.” [P08]. Many participants also acknowledged the difficulty of identifying and incorporating the person-supported’s view in cases where opinions clash and the person-supported has difficulty communicating and/or is non-verbal: “Some of the people we support are very good at expressing what they want. Some people are not. Some of our staff are really strong in expressing what they support. …And some of the family members are very strong. So you have to be very careful that the [person-supported] is not being lost in the middle of it.” [P06].

Participants also noted that some persons-supported preferred not to have a care plan:

“Some of the people say ‘I hate [the plans] I don’t want to do them’…. we look at it in a different way then. We’ll use graphic art, we’ll use video, we’ll think outside the box to get them to somehow—because at the end of the day when we’re audited by MCCSS every [person-supported] either has to have [a plan]… or there has to be [an approval of] why it wasn’t completed.” [P02].

Plan development may also include a prioritization process, particularly in cases where resources are limited. A person-supported’s goals could be prioritized using different schemas. One participant noted that “the support coordinator takes the cue from the person-supported - … what they’ve identified as ‘have to have’ and ‘nice to have’. … because the ‘have to haves’ are prioritized.” [P09]. Likewise, the person-supported’s preference could also be identified through “[an] exercise, called ‘what’s important for and what’s important to .’” [P06]. This model, based on a Helen Sanderson approach [ 18 ], was described as being helpful in highlighting what is important to the person-supported, as opposed to what others (i.e., friends, family, staff, etc.) feel is important for them.

Several organizations updated care plans throughout the year, to document progress towards goals, adapt to changing needs and plan for future goals: “We revisit the plan periodically through the year. And if they say the goal is done, we may set another goal.” [P06]. Organizations may also change plans to adapt to the person-supported’s changing health status or personal capacity.

Implementing a person-centred care plan

The implementation of care plans differed based on the nature of services provided by the organization. The delivery of health-based or personal support services often involved matching the length and intensity of care with the individual’s needs and capacity:

“Sometimes that is a long time, sometimes it’s a short time, sometimes it’s an intervention that’s needed for a bit, and then the person is able to function.” [P05].

In contrast, the delivery of community-based services involved matching activities and staff by interests: “[if] a person-supported wants to go out and be involved in the music community, then we pull the staff pool in and match them up according to interest.” [P06].

Broad personal goals were broken down into smaller, specific activities. For example, one participant described their organization’s plan in helping a person-supported achieve his professional goal of securing employment:

“[The person-supported] said ‘Okay, I want a job.’ So for three weeks he was matched up with a facilitator. They came up with an action plan in terms of how to get a job, what kind of job he’s looking for, where he wants to go, where he wants to apply, how to conduct an interview. And after three weeks he got a job.” [P09].

Organizations that provided residential services focused on developing independent-living skills. One participant described their organization’s plan to empowering persons-supported by allowing them to make their own financial decisions:

“If one month they’re looking after their own finances, and they’ve overspent. Well, maybe we help them out with a grocery card or something and say ‘okay, next month how are you going to do this?’ [The person-supported may say], ‘well, maybe I’ll put so much money aside each week rather than doing a big grocery shop the first week and not having enough money left at the end of the month.’” [P03].

The participant noted that “a tremendous amount of learning [happens] when a person is allowed to [take] risks and make their own decisions.” [P03].

Likewise, participants representing organizations that provided residential services described tailoring care to the persons-supported’s sleeping schedule and daily routine:

“We develop a plan and tweak it as we go. With [the person-supported] coming to the home, what worked well was, we found that he wanted to sleep in, so we adjusted the [staff] time. We took a look at his [medication] times in the morning… and [changed] his [medication] times. We found that he wanted to sleep [until] later in the day, so he would get up at 10 o’clock, so then instead of having breakfast, lunch, and supper he would just have a bigger brunch. Just really tailoring the plan around the person-supported, and it’s worked out well.” [P08].

These examples highlight how organizational context and culture influence how organizations operationalize person-centred care plans; the same individual may experience different approaches to care and engage in different activities depending on the organization they receive services from.

In this paper, we described key elements of the person-centred planning process across different community-care organizations in Southwestern Ontario. We also identified that the context and culture of an organization play a central role in informing the process by which services are personalized to an individual’s needs. These findings shed light on the diversity of factors that influence the implementation of person-centred care plans and the degree to which organizations are able to address medical and social needs in an integrated fashion. They also inform future evaluations of person and system-related outcomes of person-centred planning.

There are regulations around individualizing services delivered by community-care organizations, whereby care providers must allow persons-supported to participate in the development and evaluation of their care plans. HCCSS or MOH-funded services are largely focused on in-home rehabilitation or medical care. In contrast, MCCSS-funded organizations often focus on developing independent living skills or promoting community participation, thus highlighting the role of the funding agency in determining organizational context as well as the nature of services and personalization of care plans.

We also identified organizational culture as a key influence in the person-centred planning process. In previous reports, organizational culture, and specifically the way in which staff perceive and view persons-supported and their decision-making capabilities can impact the effective delivery of person-centred care [ 19 ]. Staff support, including their commitment to persons-supported and the person-centred process, has been regarded as one of the most powerful predictors of positive outcomes and goal attainment in the developmental services sector [ 20 , 21 ]. Moreover, in order to be successful, commitment to this process should extend across all levels of the organization, be fully integrated into organizational service delivery, and be reflected in organizational philosophy, values and views of persons-supported [ 22 , 23 , 24 ].

MCCSS mandates that agencies serving individuals with IDDs develop an individual service plan (ISP) for each person-supported, one “that address[es] the person’s goals, preferences and needs.” [ 7 ]. We reference ISPs as person-centred care plans, as is in line with the view of participants in interviews. There are a series of checklists designed to measure compliance with these policies, and the process is iterative, with mandated annual reviews of care plans and active participation by the person-supported [ 25 ]. In our study, the agencies funded by MCCSS adhered to the general framework outlined by these regulations and informed service delivery accordingly. However, participants also described areas for improvement with respect to the implementation of these policies in practice. These policies, while well-intentioned, may imply a one-size-fits-all approach and appear more as an administrative exercise as opposed to a meaningful endeavor designed to optimize care. Participants spoke about individuals who preferred not to have an ISP, and how that in and of itself is a person-centred approach, respecting the person’s wishes. Additionally, we heard about how the goal-setting process may not be realistic as it can be perceived as unnatural to have goals at each point in one’s life. Moreover, participants noted challenges in implementing person-centred care in shared residential settings (e.g., group homes) or in cases where persons-supported had difficulty communicating.

Prior research indicates that individuals living in semi-independent settings fare better across several quality-of-life measures relative to individuals living in group homes, including decreased social dissatisfaction, increased community participation, increased participation in activities of daily living, and increased empowerment [ 26 ]. Furthermore, a recent study by İsvan et al. (2023) found that individuals living in the community (e.g., own home, family home, or foster home) exhibit greater autonomy in making everyday and life decisions, and greater satisfaction with their inclusion in the community [ 27 ]. These findings may be indicative of a reduced focus on person-centred care plan development and implementation in congregate care settings, where limited staff capacity can make it difficult to tend to the needs of everyone in the home. However, poor outcomes may also be explained by potentially more complex health challenges or more severe disability in persons-supported living in congregate care settings. The challenges described in our study are consistent with calls to improve the quality of care provided in residential group home settings [ 28 , 29 ].

In line with our findings, previous literature also describes challenges in implementing person-centred planning for individuals who have difficulty communicating or are non-verbal [ 19 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Communication has also been identified as a barrier to patient-centred care for adults with IDDs in healthcare settings [ 33 , 34 ]. Other reports have identified a need for increased training and awareness of diverse communication styles (including careful observation of non-verbal cues) to aid staff in including persons-supported in the development of care plans [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Importantly, these methods take substantial time which is often limited, and compounded by staffing shortages that are widespread across the sector [ 38 ]. Similar barriers were identified in interviews with staff and persons-supported at a partner community-care agency within our larger project [ 39 ]; other papers from the project examine strategies used by the organization to overcome these barriers.

Limitations

The findings from this study should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. There is a risk for social desirability bias, whereby participants may feel pressure to present their care plan process in a more positive light due to societal norms and expectations [ 40 ]. Additionally, the experiences and views of community-care organizations may vary by region and organization type (i.e., for-profit vs. not-for-profit). In this study, we limited participation to agencies providing services in Southwestern Ontario and we were only able to interview one for-profit agency, despite concerted recruitment efforts. Consequently, we may not have fully captured how financial pressures, or different contextual and cultural components of an organization impact their implementation of care plans.

The person-centred planning process in community-care organizations is largely informed by the characteristics of the population served and the nature of services offered (i.e., organizational context). This process usually involves initial and continued consultations with persons-supported to tailor plans to their specific needs and desired outcomes. There are ongoing challenges in the implementation of person-centred planning, including a need for increased adaptability and clarity in current regulations. In some areas, there may be benefit to incorporating nuance in the application of policies (e.g., in cases where a person-supported does not want to have a formal plan in place). In other areas, it may be helpful to have increased guidance on how to optimize care delivery to improve outcomes (e.g., in cases where a person-supported has difficulty communicating, or is residing in a group home). Policymakers, administrators, and service providers can leverage these insights to refine policies, advocating for inclusive, flexible approaches that better align with diverse community needs.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed in the current study are not publicly available to maintain participant confidentiality, however access may be granted by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Acquired Brain Injury

Disability Services Ontario

Home and Community Care Support Services

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Individual Service Plan

Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services

Ministry of Health

Purbhoo D, Wojtak A. Patient and family-centred home and community care: realizing the opportunity. Nurs Leadersh Tor Ont. 2018;31(2):40–51.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin E, Balogh RS, Durbin A, Holder L, Gupta N, Volpe T et al. Addressing gaps in the health care services used by adults with developmental disabilities in Ontario. ICES. 2019 [cited 2023 Aug 30]. https://www.ices.on.ca/publications/research-reports/addressing-gaps-in-the-health-care-services-used-by-adults-with-developmental-disabilities-in-ontario/

American Psychological Association. APA Guidelines for Assessment and Intervention with Persons with Disabilities: (502822022-001). 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 30]; http://doi.apa.org/get-pe-doi.cfm?doi=10.1037/e502822022-001

Dunn DS, Andrews EE. Person-first and identity-first language: developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. Am Psychol. 2015;70(3):255–64.

Burke C. Building a stronger system for people with developmental disabilities: a six-month progress report from Commissioner Courtney Burke. New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities; 2011. https://opwdd.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2019/12/6_month_progress_report_0.pdf

Government of Manitoba. Agency service coordination manual: 5.1 person-centred planning. 2021. https://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/clds/asc-manual/pubs/5.1-person-centred-planning.pdf

Government of Ontario. Services and supports to promote the social inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008. 2008 [cited 2023 Aug 30]. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100299#:~:text=O.-,Reg.,and other relevant clinical assessments

State of Michigan. Person Centered Planning.pdf. 2018.

O’Brien CL, O’Brien J. The origins of person-centered planning: a community of practice perspective.

Sanderson H. Person Centred Planning. York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2000.

Government of Ontario. Ontario.ca. 2019 [cited 2023 Sep 4]. Connecting Care Act, 2019: Home and Community Care Services. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/220187#BK17

Dong M. Examining individualized participatory approaches to care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. University of Western Ontario; 2023. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/9517

Doyle L, McCabe C, Keogh B, Brady A, McCann M. An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. J Res Nurs. 2020;25(5):443–55.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE; 2014. p. 305.

Berg BL. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences: 2nd ed. Bostan, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1995. p. 421.

Google Scholar  

Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE; 2012. p. 321.

Yin RK. Case study research design and methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2014. p. 282.

Helen Sanderson Associates. Helen Sanderson Associates. [cited 2023 Oct 31]. Sorting important to/for. http://helensandersonassociates.co.uk/person-centred-practice/person-centred-thinking-tools/sorting-important-tofor/

Hughes CA. The benefits and barriers to person centered planning for adults with developmental disabilities. [Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA]: St. Catherine University; 2013. https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/191

Heller T, Miller AB, Hsieh K, Sterns H. Later-life planning: promoting knowledge of options and choice-making. Ment Retard. 2000;38(5):395–406.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ratti V, Hassiotis A, Crabtree J, Deb S, Gallagher P, Unwin G. The effectiveness of person-centred planning for people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;57:63–84.

Kaehne A, Beyer S. Person-centred reviews as a mechanism for planning the post-school transition of young people with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014;58(7):603–13.

Parley FF. Person-centred outcomes: are outcomes improved where a person-centred care model is used? J Learn Disabil. 2001;5(4):299–308.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sanderson H, Thompson J, Kilbane J. The emergence of person-centred planning as evidence‐based practice. J Integr Care. 2006;14(2):18–25.

Government of Ontario. Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. Developmental service (DS) compliance inspection: indicator list. 2021 [cited 2023 Sep 4]. https://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/developmental/EN_DS_Indicator_List.pdf

Stancliffe RJ, Keane S. Outcomes and costs of community living: a matched comparison of group homes and semi-independent living. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2000;25(4):281–305.

İsvan N, Bonardi A, Hiersteiner D. Effects of person-centred planning and practices on the health and well-being of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a multilevel analysis of linked administrative and survey data. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 4]; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13015

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. 3.10: residential services for people with developmental disabilities. 2014. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en14/310en14.pdf

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. 1.10 residential services for people with developmental disabilities. 2016. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en16/v2_110en16.pdf

Robertson J, Emerson E, Hatton C, Elliott J, McIntosh B, Swift P, et al. Person-centred planning: factors associated with successful outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res JIDR. 2007;51(Pt 3):232–43.

Everson JM, Zhang D, Person-Centered Planning. Characteristics, inhibitors, and supports. Educ Train Ment Retard Dev Disabil. 2000;35(1):36–43.

Claes C, Van Hove G, Vandevelde S, van Loon J, Schalock RL. Person-centered planning: analysis of research and effectiveness. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2010;48(6):432–53.

Stringer K, Terry AL, Ryan BL, Pike A. Patient-centred primary care of adults with severe and profound intellectual and developmental disabilities. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64(Suppl 2):S63–9.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Badcock E, Sakellariou D. Treating him… like a piece of meat: poor communication as a barrier to care for people with learning disabilities. Disabil Stud Q. 2022 [cited 2023 Sep 4];42(1). https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/7408

Mansell J, Beadle-Brown J. Person-centred planning or person-centred action? Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disability Services. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2004;17(1):1–9.

Bigby C, Frawley P. Social work practice and intellectual disability: working to support change. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2018. p. 253.

Taylor JE, Taylor JA. Person-centered planning: evidence-based practice, challenges, and potential for the 21st century. J Soc Work Disabil Rehabil. 2013;12(3):213–35.

Zijlstra R, Vlaskamp C, Buntinx W. Direct-care staff turnover: an indicator of the quality of life of individuals with profound multiple disabilities. Eur J Mental Disabil. 2001;(22):39–55.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), CIHR-Institute of Health Services and Policy Research (CIHR-IHSPR) and partners. Evidence brief booklet: quadruple aim & equity catalyst grants. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 2]. https://face2face.events/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Evidence-Brief-Booklet-Quadruple-Aim-and-Equity-EN.pdf

Bergen N, Labonté R. Everything is perfect, and we have no problems: detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2020;30(5):783–92.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ruth Armstrong, from PHSS - Medical & Complex Care in Community, for her valuable feedback and support throughout the research process.

This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The funding agency had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, 1151 Richmond St, London, ON, N6A 5C1, Canada

Samina Idrees, Gillian Young, Leslie Meredith & Maria Mathews

PHSS - Medical & Complex Care in Community, 620 Colborne St, London, ON, N6B 3R9, Canada

Brian Dunne & Donnie Antony

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.I. conducted the interviews, developed the coding template, coded the data, thematically analyzed the data, and prepared the manuscript. G.Y. helped develop the coding template, and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. B.D. and D.A. helped conceptualize the study, aided in the interpretation and analysis of study findings, and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. L.M. coordinated research activities, aided in the interpretation and analysis of study findings, and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. M.M. conceptualized the study, supervised its implementation, and was a major contributor in reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Mathews .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the research ethics board at Western University. We obtained informed consent from participants prior to the onset of interviews.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Idrees, S., Young, G., Dunne, B. et al. The implementation of person-centred plans in the community-care sector: a qualitative study of organizations in Ontario, Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 680 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11089-7

Download citation

Received : 14 February 2024

Accepted : 08 May 2024

Published : 29 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11089-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Person-centred planning
• Community-based care
• Integrated care
• Social services
• Health services
• Organizational culture
• Qualitative study

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Research Questionnaire

Questionnaire generator.

When a researcher creates a research paper using the scientific method they will need to use a gathering method that is adjacent to the research topic. This means that the researcher will use a quantitative research method for a quantitive topic and a qualitative method for a qualitative  one.  The research questionnaire is one of the quantitative data-gathering methods a researcher can use in their research paper.

1. Market Research Questionnaire Template Example

• Google Docs
• Apple Pages

Size: 38 KB

2. Market Research Questionnaire Example

Size: 94 KB

3. Research Questionnaire Example

4. Sample Market Research Questionnaire

Size: 35 KB

5. Research Survey Questionnaire

Size: 42 KB

6. Research Survey Questionnaire Construction

Size: 80 KB

7. Research Questionnaire Survey of Consumers

Size: 39 KB

8. Guide to the Design of Research Questionnaires

Size: 77 KB

9. Planning Survey Research Questionnaires

Size: 85 KB

10. Climate Change Survey Questionnaires

Size: 41 KB

11. Survey Questionnaire Design

Size: 96 KB

12. Developing Questionnaires for Educational Research

Size: 81 KB

13. Graudate Research Student Questionnaires

14. Sample Research Survey Questionnaires

Size: 46 KB

15. Market Research Questionnaire Example

16. Research Survey Questionnaire Example

17. Product X Research Study Questionnaire Example

What Is a Research Questionnaire?

A research questionnaire is a physical or digital questionnaire that researchers use to obtain quantitative data. The research questionnaire is a more in-depth version of a survey   as its questions often delve deeper than survey questions .

How to Write a Research Questionnaire

A well-made research questionnaire can effectively and efficiently gather data from the population. Creating a good research questionnaire does not require that many writing skills , soft skills , or hard skills , it just requires the person to properly understand the data set they are looking for.

Step 1: Select a Topic or Theme for the Research Questionnaire

Begin by choosing a topic or theme   for the research questionnaire as this will provide much-needed context for the research questionnaire. Not only that but the topic will also dictate the tone of the questions in the questionnaire.

Step 2: Obtain or Use a Research Questionnaire Outline

You may opt to use a research questionnaire outline or outline format for your research questionnaire. This outline will provide you with a structure you can use to easily make your research questionnaire.

Step 3: Create your Research Questionnaire

Start by creating questions that will help provide you with the necessary data to prove or disprove your research question. You may conduct brainstorming sessions to formulate the questions for your research questionnaire.

Step 4: Edit and Have Someone Proofread the Questionnaire

After you have created and completed the research questionnaire, you must edit the contents of the questionnaire. Not only that but it is wise to have someone proofread the contents of your questionnaire before deploying the questionnaire. 

How does a research questionnaire help businesses?

A successful business or company utilizes research questionnaires to not only obtain data from their customers but also to gather data about the performance and quality of the employees in the business. The research questionnaire provides the business or company with actionable data, which they can use to improve the product, service, or commodity to obtain more customers.

Do I need to provide a consent form when I ask someone to answer the research questionnaire?

Yes, consent is very important as without this the data you have gathered from your questionnaires or surveys are useless. Therefore it is important to provide a consent form with your research questionnaire when you are asking a participant to answer the document.

What type of answers are allowed in the research questionnaire?

Research questionnaires can host a multitude of types of questions each with its specific way of answering.  A questionnaire can use multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, and closed questions. Just be sure to properly pace the questions as having too many different types of answering styles can demotivate or distract the target audience, which might lead to errors.

A research questionnaire is a data-gathering document people can use to obtain information and data from a specific group of people. Well-made and crafted research questionnaires will provide much-needed information one can use to answer a specific research question.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Create a fun quiz to find out which historical figure you're most like in your study habits

Design a survey to discover students' favorite school subjects and why they love them.