Qualitative Research Methods (sociology)

Qualitative research encompasses a diverse range of theoretical and philosophical traditions that, in general, stem from an interpretivist view of the world. In contrast to quantitative research, which stems primarily from a positivist view of the world and is typically used to measure things that one can see, qualitative research seeks to explain or understand how certain people experience and interpret their lives. Often, qualitative research is used to explore social phenomena and processes in their natural settings, such as how people cope with disease and illness, how the social category of gender is socially constructed through formal education, or how people learn to identify themselves as gay or lesbian. Qualitative research is used to make sense of such phenomena in terms of what they mean to people or how people make sense of such experiences. Using methods such as detailed interviewing, participant observation, and focus groups, qualitative researchers try to gain insight into the actor's perspective and capture his or her point of view or lived experience.

Overview

Quantitative & Qualitative Research

Qualitative and quantitative research reflect different perspectives on the world and different sets of assumptions about what constitutes knowledge. At the heart of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research lies a question about the nature of reality. Positivism is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the importance of conducting social science research in a way that focuses strictly on causal relationships between behaviors and other social phenomena that can be measured or directly observed. Positivism holds that objects, events, and social behaviors have objective properties that can be seen, measured, and predicted. Thus, the positivist tradition emphasizes the importance of objectivity, which is an approach to creating knowledge that claims to be detached from the phenomenon under study (because the research process does not get involved in the lives of those being studied) and unbiased (because research methods do not reflect the personal values of the researcher).

This approach to research typically relies on quantitative methods — tests, questionnaires, standardized observation instruments, and formal records — to collect data, and analysis aims for precision by attaching numerical values to people's experience. Quantitative methods such as surveys, experiments, and intervention studies are used to measure things that one can see; in social science, what is typically measured are statistical relationships that stand for social behaviors. These statistical relationships can provide insight into phenomena such as rates of illness and disease in populations or the impact of an education intervention on academic performance. Transferability, or the extent to which a finding is transferable or generalizable to other populations, is important in quantitative research (Silverman, 1993). It is also concerned with validity, of which there are two kinds. Internal validity refers to whether or not a study achieved its aims, and external validity has to do with the extent to which the results can be applied in other contexts.

Criticisms of Quantitative Research

However, quantitative research is generally unable to describe and explain social experience or explore what is taken for granted about a society and its cultural practices. Indeed, for some social groups, there has been something of a loss of faith in positivism because of the tendency of researchers associated with this tradition to make generalizations about social experience. Yet, as Lincoln and Cannella (2004) argue, quantitative research, especially when it relies on experimental design, is generally ill-suited to the complex and dynamic social world, which is characterized by differences in, at the very least, "gender, race, ethnicity, linguistic status, or class." Dissatisfaction with quantitative research methods was evident in early twentieth century social research such as that associated with the Chicago School, which in the 1920s and 1930s pioneered research methods that emphasized the importance of capturing the experience of people living in urban settings in their own words and through direct observation.

This kind of research relied on ethnography — fieldwork, case studies, and in-depth interviews — to generate richly detailed data. Classic qualitative studies include William Foote Whyte's study of young men in an Italian neighborhood of Boston, which is underpinned by the assumption that a social phenomenon needs to be studied in its entirety. This tradition relies on an interpretivist perspective on the world and is critical of the positivist emphasis on studying the parts of a phenomenon rather than the whole.

Specific critique of positivism in general and quantitative methods in particular by various protest groups, such as civil rights workers, Marxists, feminists, and disability advocates, followed in the 1960s and 1970s. These groups identified the ways in which quantitative research methods are based on values that have come to be associated with a male or masculine view of the world and can therefore be seen as androcentric, such as objectivity, detachment, and reason, and dismiss indigenous and vernacular knowledge (people's everyday language and customs) as irrational.

Feminist researchers have been especially critical of how social research using quantitative methods claims to be neutral and objective. Such an approach makes assumptions about women's lives and ignores aspects of life that are important to women. For instance, feminism has been critical of the idea that science can be detached and that the researcher is not involved in a relationship with the person who participates in the research. Qualitative methods involve an emotional closeness between the researcher and the research participant that can have the advantage of helping the researcher gain insight into sensitive and previously ignored areas of social life, such as life course changes (e.g., menopause), health care experiences, and sexuality.

Qualitative Research & Interpretivism

Qualitative research sets out to answer a different set of questions from quantitative methods. According to Hallberg,

Qualitative researchers study phenomena and processes

in their natural settings and intend to make sense of

those matters in terms of the meanings people bring to

them … Through detailed interviewing, participant

observations, and rich descriptions of the social world,

qualitative researchers hope to come close to the actor's

perspective and try to capture his or her point of view

or lived experience. (2006, p. 141)

The interpretivist tradition on which qualitative research is based tries to understand what it means to be human and asks questions about the meaning of social phenomena, how things work, and how people's perceptions influence their lives. Interpretivism is the basis of a diverse range of theoretical traditions, including ethnography, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, and postmodernism. There are, however, some differences among approaches to qualitative research that reflect whether the researchers accept an objective reality that is subjectively lived (known as subtle realism) or believe that reality itself is best understood as multifaceted (constructivism).

These variations on how interpretivism is considered influence both data collection methods and analysis in qualitative research. For instance, research that is informed by subtle realism is more likely to use methods that try to represent reality, such as a case study or historical records. Analysis may involve triangulation between different kinds of data (for instance, reports and public records) to ensure that the findings will be seen as reliable and valid (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Moreover, in this view, qualitative research can be evaluated in the same way as quantitative research. That is, its validity can be assessed by reference to issues such as respondent validation, clear detailing of methods of data collection and analysis, and attention to negative cases.

In contrast, constructivist accounts of social phenomena reject the importance of objectivity and reliability, emphasizing instead that social analysis (or knowledge) is provisional and context dependent. Constructivist research is more concerned with reflexivity than with reliability or even validity. Reflexivity refers to the way that a researcher's background and assumptions affect what questions are being asked, who the target population is for the study, how the questions are asked, and how the analysis is conducted. The qualitative researcher understands that he or she is not a neutral observer of social life and that what he or she sees is, in part, determined by his or her assumptions and background. Rather than viewing this insight as a limitation on the reliability or validity of research, reflexivity is viewed as a commitment to acknowledging and questioning the role of the researcher in collecting and analyzing data. Reflexivity does not ignore the potential for bias in the researcher's account of social life; it acknowledges the existence of any bias and makes that acknowledgement visible in his or her account of the research process.

Regardless of these differences, qualitative research generally seeks to gain access to subjectively lived experiences by talking with, listening to, and watching people in their everyday contexts. Moreover, although there are different theoretical or philosophical traditions that inform qualitative research, they share the common goal of trying to explain or understand how a particular group of people experience and interpret their circumstances. Broadly, qualitative research methods involve the systematic collection, organization, and interpretation of textual or visual material derived from talk or observation. Unlike quantitative research, which collects data from many participants (typically hundreds, sometimes thousands) to explore a relatively small number of questions, qualitative research generates volumes of richly detailed data from a small number of cases.

Applications

Qualitative Research Methods

Broadly, qualitative research methods are used to gain insight into people's attitudes, behaviors, value systems, concerns, motivations, aspirations, culture, or lifestyles through the collecting of information that is typically unstructured. Unstructured information, or data, can include interview material, customer feedback forms, reports, or media clips. These data can be collected via in-depth interviews, analysis of textual or visual content (e.g., magazine articles or advertisements), participant observation (ethnography), or focus groups. Analysis involves a process of organizing data in order to interpret it, though the process varies according to the approach underlying the research. For instance, analysis can involve immersion, which entails looking closely at data and isolating what seem to most answer the research questions. Sometimes data can be isolated in order to examine it closely (decontextualization), and sometimes interpretations of data can be examined to see if they fit with broader patterns of data as a whole (recontextualization). A theory-based approach uses theory to organize data in order to shed light on a previously known phenomenon. Phenomenology looks at data in order to identify how people view and understand their experiences, or it may look for the stories that people tell about their experiences and what such stories reveal about social relationships and processes.

In-Depth Interviews

Qualitative researchers use interviews to gather information from people about their individual attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. In contrast to survey questions, which are typically closed (yes/no questions or questions with a selection of answers provided by the researcher), in-depth interviews typically are open-ended and encourage people to talk freely in their own words about topics of relevance to the research. In-depth interviews have the advantage of allowing participants to talk about issues that the researcher may not have considered but that are important to understanding the phenomenon under investigation. In-depth interviews are usually audio recorded, then transcribed, and analysis focuses on categorizing and exploring text. Analysis can focus on finding themes that recur throughout their interviews: how people organize their talk, the stories they tell about their experiences, or some combination of these approaches. Research that uses the method of in-depth interview is often supported by an approach called grounded theory. In this approach, researchers rely mostly on the data to explain or predict an event, process, or set of experiences.

Content Analysis

Content analysis is a method that focuses on both texts and images and is widely used in media research. Content analysis can be used quantitatively, to count, for instance, how many times a particular issue is discussed in the press. Such data can be used to gauge what the media view as important topics. Qualitative content analysis focuses on how topics are represented and uses analytic frameworks such as semiotics and psychoanalysis to explore the social construction of images and ideas and what they reveal about society. Content analysis involves researchers looking at what is in a text or image and coding (categorizing or grouping in themes) what they (think) they see (Rose, 2001). Identifying themes can help the research explain how ideas or images are put together and what they seem to be saying about social life.

Ethnography

Ethnography is a qualitative research technique that relies on direct observation of a particular social group or culture through talking to members of the group and looking at documents. In ethnographic research, the researcher is the research instrument and is trying to understand what is going on in a particular setting. Ethnography typically involves lengthy participation or immersion in the everyday life of a chosen or natural setting—what anthropologists have described as being "in the field" (Pope, 2005). This method requires patience and time, since it often depends on waiting for things to happen. For instance, many health researchers have used ethnographic methods to explore what happens in medical settings (e.g., conversational exchanges between doctors and patients in health clinics) and how this affects understandings and experiences of health. The data being collected (words, actions) are typically recorded in field notes, or it may be audio and/or videotaped. While all qualitative research needs to be grounded in the informed consent of research participants, ethnographic research methods raise particular issues around negotiating access to the research setting (Ames, Thompson & Thurston, 2001). Sometimes, researchers need to gain prior institutional approval, such as, for instance, when the research involves observation in a hospital or prison.

Focus Groups

Many qualitative researchers use focus groups to collect data. Focus groups are viewed as social events that are characterized by organized discussion. A focus group is a form of group interviewing, but it differs from a group interview in the sense that interaction between group members is key. The main purpose of using focus group research is to gain insight into the participants' attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences, and reactions as they arise in the context of group interaction. The primary assumptions in using the focus group method are that such attitudes are more likely to be revealed in the context of group interaction and that group processes can help people explore and clarify their views in new ways.

Focus groups are led or facilitated by a moderator — usually someone on the research team — who is skilled at directing conversation, summarizing points, and keeping conversation on track. The moderator uses an interview protocol to guide discussion, which, as with in-depth interviews, reflects the broad themes that the researcher wishes to cover. However, in a focus group, the moderator must be able to pursue topics that participants raise in the interaction process and deal with emotions that may arise in the discussion, such as anger or sadness.

Focus groups have advantages over in-depth interviews or observation methods. They allow researchers to explore topics in a nonthreatening environment and gain insight into a range of views within a group of participants who share a similar background, such as doctors, teachers, or mothers. For this reason, they are often used in health and marketing research and can be used to find out what patients and practitioners think about health care or medical practice, identify gaps in practitioner learning, and determine whether practitioners have learned something after an educational intervention.

According to Kalvemark et al., "focus groups are particularly useful when there are power differences between the participants and decision-makers or professionals, when the everyday use of language and culture of particular groups is of interest, and when one wants to explore the degree of consensus on a given topic" (2004). However, there are also "difficulties associated with the focus group method, since it involves group dynamics" that can pose challenges for the moderator. It can be especially challenging to ensure that all group participants are invited to express their personal views, since groups are often characterized by power imbalances and internal tensions.

Software

Qualitative research generates an enormous volume of unstructured data that can be messy and time consuming to analyze (that is, to sort into themes and build into theories). Conventional tools for sorting and analyzing qualitative data include index cards or paper, scissors, and paste. These tools allow researchers to trawl through an interview transcript to pull out chunks of text that are especially meaningful and can be linked to chunks of text in another interview transcript. However, most qualitative researchers now use software packages to help them store, sort through, and code or index their data. Most programs allow researchers to store, sort, chart, model, and link videos, photographs, documents such as interview transcripts, and audio files. This allows the researcher to more systematically search the data and create an audit trail that makes the analysis process more transparent.

Conclusion

In contrast to quantitative research, which focuses on research questions that need to be answered by identifying and measuring phenomena, qualitative research is used when the research questions are focused on people's experiences or how they interpret the social world. There are several methods to support qualitative research, all of which have in common the desire to understand and explain experiences from the participants' perspectives. Consequently, qualitative research methods are typically used in contexts where the participants' perspective is crucial, such as in health care or in market research. Finally, because qualitative research methods generate a vast volume of data, researchers typically use software programs that can help store, code, and rapidly retrieve data more systematically.

Terms & Concepts

Androcentric: A view of the world based on values that have come to be associated with maleness or masculinity, such as objectivity, detachment, and reason.

Chicago School: A school of sociology at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s that focused on the experiences and perspectives of participants in applied research in an urban setting.

Constructivism: An interpretivist philosophy of learning that emphasizes that people construct their view of the world through their social experiences.

Ethnography: A qualitative research technique that relies on direct observation of a particular social group or culture through talking to members of the group and looking at documents. In ethnographic research, the researcher is the research instrument.

Interpretivism: A philosophical perspective that argues, first, that social phenomena need to be examined as a whole and, second, that there is not one single reality but rather multiple realities.

Positivism: A philosophical tradition that emphasizes the importance of conducting social science research in a way that focuses strictly on causal relationships between behaviors and other social phenomena that can be measured or directly observed.

Reflexivity: A commitment to acknowledging and questioning the role of the researcher in collecting and analyzing data.

Transferability: The extent to which a research finding is transferable or generalizable to other populations.

Triangulation: A way of enhancing research credibility by collecting data on the topic from different sources or using more than one researcher to collect the data.

Validity: Internal validity refers whether or not a study has achieved its aims. External validity is the extent to which the results can be applied in other contexts.

Bibliography

Ames, J.C., Thompson, S. & Thuston, M.N. (2001). Difficulties in negotiating research access. Bulletin of Medical Ethics. , 15-7.

Anyan, F. (2013). The influence of power shifts in data collection and analysis stages: A focus on qualitative research interview. Qualitative Report, 18, 1–9. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Carpenter C. & Suto, M. (2008). Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists. Blackwell, London.

Crossman, A. (2020, Feb. 2). An overview of qualitative research methods. ThoughtCo. Retrieved September 13, 2024, from https://www.thoughtco.com/qualitative-research-methods-3026555

Davidson, J. (2012). The journal project: Qualitative computing and the technology/aesthetics divide in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13, 1–30. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, C. (2013). Epistemology in qualitative social work research: A review of published articles, 2008–2010. Social Work Research, 37, 55–63. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Hallberg, L.R-M. (2006). The "core category" of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1 , 141-148. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete

Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. New York: Cornell University Press.

Kalvemark, S.K., Hoglund, A.T., Hansson, M.G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz, B. (2004). Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health care system. Social Science & Medicine, 58 , 1075-1084.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interactions between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16 , 103-121. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299-302.

Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Cannella, G. (2004). Qualitative research, power, and the radical right. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 , 175-201.

Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet, 358 (9280), 483-458. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete

Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320 (7226), 50-52. Retrieved January 24, 2010 from EBSCO online database, MEDLINE with Full Text

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, W.L. & Crabtree, B.F. (1999). Clinical research: A multimethod typology and qualitative roadmap. 3-30. In, B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (Eds). Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Nettleton, S. (2006). The sociology of health and illness. 2nd ed. London: Wiley.

Nicholls, D. (2009). Qualitative research: Part one — philosophies. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation,16 : 526-533. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete

Pope, C. (2005). Conducting ethnography in medical settings. Medical Education, 39, 1180-1187. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

Rose, G. (2001). Visual methodologies. London: Sage.

Shields, L. & Twycross, A. (2003). The difference between quantitative and qualitative research. Paediatric Nursing, 15: 24. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Webb, C., & Kevern, J. (2001). Focus groups as a research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33, 798-805. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete.

Whyte, W.F. (1993 [1943]). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Suggested Reading

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. & Delamont, S. (2003). Key themes in qualitative research: Continuities and change. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 976-993.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. 1-32. In, N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, (eds). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, C. (2013). Examining foundations of qualitative research: A review of social work dissertations, 2008–2010. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, 760–773. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Kumar, R. (2013). How are women's experiences of childbirth represented in the literature? A critical review of qualitative health research set in the global South. Women's Health & Urban Life, 12, 19–38. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Thorne, S. & Darbyshire, P. (2005). Land mines in the field: A modest proposal for improving the craft of qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1105-13.