Research Questions

Batman007

Resource3.pdf

Home >English homework help >Research Questions

The Scope and Contribution of Qualitative

Research

In: Introducing Qualitative Research

By: Barbour Rosaline

Pub. Date: 2011

Access Date: April 7, 2019

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Ltd

City: London

Print ISBN: 9781412934602

Online ISBN: 9780857029034

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857029034

Print pages: 9-34

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the

online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857029034

The Scope and Contribution of Qualitative Research

AIMS

• This chapter illustrates the range of questions that qualitative research can answer.

• It sensitizes the reader to the debates that have characterized the development of qualitative

research and equips her/him to appreciate the benefits of this approach through emphasizing

the underlying assumptions about the nature of knowledge and how we can study the social

world.

• It outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the range of methods used by qualitative

researchers and enables the reader to judge the appropriateness of matching particular

methods with specific research questions.

• It introduces the vocabulary and concepts appealed to by qualitative researchers and

summarizes both distinct features and commonalities of the major qualitative traditions.

• It provides a set of questions to facilitate critical evaluation of qualitative papers, which also

encourage thoughtful research practice.

INTRODUCTION

Qualitative research is not for the faint-hearted, but it can be exhilarating and can provide unique and valuable

insights. If you've read even this far the chances are that you are attracted to doing this sort of research.

There has been some debate within qualitative research as to whether such researchers are ‘born’ or ‘made’,

but I suspect that, for most of us, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

This chapter begins by examining the role of different dispositions, or types of curiosity, in driving the focus

and design of qualitative research studies. It will then go on to consider what is distinctive about qualitative

research, illustrating the unique contribution it can make to knowledge. The next section presents the range

of methods that can be employed in order to generate qualitative data. Following this, the chapter turns

to qualitative traditions and the philosophical ideas about the nature of knowledge and how to generate

it, together with ideas about the social world and how this works. The following section presents the

iterative research process that characterizes qualitative research and which, through its flexibility, affords both

analytic potential and ample challenges. The importance of reflexivity is stressed, including the need to be

reflexive about some of our own assumptions, deriving from our previous research experience, disciplinary

background, or predispositions. Some of the perceived limitations, or difficulties encountered in designing

and conducting qualitative research are examined. Some of these are shown not to be relevant, since these

overlook some of the distinctive principles underlying the qualitative research endeavour. If expectations and

assumptions are reviewed, however, and these ideas about shortcomings are recast, it is argued that they

can, instead, be viewed as strengths. This raises the issue of how we evaluate qualitative research and it is

argued that we need to use a different set of questions from those routinely asked of quantitative research,

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

and that we also should be wary of checklists for reviewing qualitative work, which may still harbour some

of the inappropriate assumptions highlighted earlier. The accompanying exercise suggests asking a set of

questions designed to address the rigour of the research, while acknowledging that this represents an ideal.

It may be unrealistic to hope for positive answers to all such questions and we need to think carefully about

the reasons for reading the paper in the first place.

DISPOSITIONS

Tricia Greenhalgh (1998), who trained as an anthropologist prior to studying medicine, consequently has

a unique insight into research endeavours situated at the conjunction between the two sets of disciplinary

concerns. She points out that qualitative research taps into a different sort of curiosity. Recalling a story told

to her by Cecil Helman, she uses the analogy of two children observing leaves falling from trees in autumn to

characterize two different ‘research mindsets’: one which is drawn to counting and calculating the rate of leaf-

fall and predicting when trees will become totally bare and the other which involves pondering the broader

context where only some trees lose their leaves and the diversity of sizes, shapes and colours of leaves

involved. To paraphrase Greenhalgh (and Helman), the ‘calculators’ are prone to becoming quantitative

researchers, while the ‘ponderers’ are much more attuned to qualitative research approaches.

Although this obviously involves some over-simplification, it is certainly the case that we have tended

to overlook the importance of the match between researcher and research methods. Trow (1957: 33)

observed:‘Every cobbler thinks leather is the only thing – most [researchers] have their favourite research

methods with which they are familiar and have some skill in using…. We mostly choose to investigate

problems that seem amenable to attack through these methods.’ While this does not preclude researchers

with a quantitative ‘mindset’ undertaking qualitative projects – or, indeed vice versa - this notion of deeply

rooted dispositions helps to explain both why certain broad research questions, or properties of the data

produced, ‘grab’ some individuals more than do others. This selectivity can be seen at work in the many

examples provided throughout this book.

WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?

Qualitative research answers very different questions from those addressed by quantitative research, and

some criticisms directed against qualitative research have, at times, failed to take this into account. Qualitative

methods cannot answer questions such as ‘How many?’,‘What are the causes?’,‘What is the strength of

the relationship between variables?’ It can, however, provide an understanding of how official figures are

created through social processes. Research, such as that done by Lindsay Prior (2003) on suicide statistics

and documentation used in psychiatric hospitals and Mick Bloor (1991) on death certification, has examined

how the categories are interpreted and employed by those doing the recording. Studies of this sort have

also sought to explain how this has come about – due to policy emphases and working practices. Even a

seemingly straightforward issue, such as how hospital waiting lists are managed, has been shown to be

subject to fascinating variation, which has as much to do with social processes as it has to do with clinical

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

factors (Pope, 1991).

Qualitative research can make visible and unpick the mechanisms which link particular variables, by looking

at the explanations, or accounts, provided by those involved. Quantitative research excels at identifying

statistically significant relationships between variables, such as social class and health status, and frequently

produces diagrams which show the distribution and strength of this association for people located at different

points on the social class spectrum. Quantitative analyses can, of course, further explain such associations

by determining the relative influence of individual variables for sub-samples of the population under study,

or by looking at the effect of clusters of related variables. What eludes such approaches, however, is the

capacity to explain how the ‘macro’ (i.e. social class position, gender, locality) is translated into the ‘micro’ (i.e.

everyday practices, understandings and interactions) to guide individual behaviour. This is where qualitative

research can provide a fuller picture.

Although qualitative and quantitative research answers very different questions, researchers often have

common interests in seeking to understand a particular phenomenon and the two approaches can be

complementary. An interview study sought to find out what demands HIV/AIDS made on professionals and

how they dealt with these challenges (Barbour, 1993, 1995). Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit

the perceptions of workers in four Scottish cities, which were characterized by different epidemic patterns

and varying histories of service development. By leaving it up to the interviewees to identify which aspects of

their work they experienced as most demanding, interviews established that organizational aspects of their

work and new professional challenges loomed as large for staff as did the more predictable problems posed

by caring for young people (many of whom were already stigmatized by virtue of their drug use or sexuality)

who were dying. Although there had been a number of quantitative studies which had sought to measure

levels of burnout among AIDS-related workers, these had concentrated mostly on the issues raised by the

interface with patients. Had this study been followed by a survey employing a structured questionnaire to try

to quantify the impact of AIDS-related work on satisfaction or burnout, it would certainly have been useful

to have augmented these pre-validated scales. Additional questions could have been incorporated which

investigated the way in which work was organized, since the interviews had shown that the demands of

working in multidisciplinary teams, and responding to particular management styles, allocation of resources

and the implications for career development were of particular importance to professionals (Barbour, 1993).

Rather than pre-defining the variable likely to be important to those we study, qualitative approaches allow

respondents to identify those issues which are salient for them and to explain how these impact on their daily

lives and, in the case above, how these affect how they go about their work and how these affect their job

satisfaction. It is for this reason that qualitative methods are often utilized in order to inform the development

of structured research instruments, such as surveys, and mixed methods research is discussed more fully in

Chapter 7.

By employing qualitative methods it is possible to study how people understand concepts; what sort of ‘trade-

offs’ they might make to themselves in weighing up, for example, health promotion messages and deciding

whether or not to take these on board. An early and influential publication in the field of medical sociology

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

explains how individuals process information and make decisions:

A person is unlikely simply to return from the doctor's surgery and take the treatment that he has

been prescribed. It is more likely that the doctor's action and the treatment will be discussed and

evaluated. Medication decisions will be made in the light of these discussions, in the light of the

person's experiences with the treatment, and in the light of past experiences with the doctor and

other illnesses and treatments…. People live their problems and illnesses socially; they cannot be

viewed as isolated individuals responding automatically to the instructions of their doctors. (Stimson

and Webb, 1978: 152)

Qualitative methods can allow us to access these ‘embedded’ processes by focusing on the context of

people's everyday lives, where such decisions are made and enacted, rather than simply looking at patient

characteristics or the content of consultations. It is not only members of the public, the ‘lay population’,

however, who weigh up information in what might be seen as idiosyncratic ways. A study by Fairhurst

and Huby (1998) examined how general practitioners (GPs) evaluated the results of randomized control

trials (RCTs) in a specific area of medical practice (the management of hypocholesterolaemia). Drawing on

cognitive theories of education, they showed that knowledge trickled down to GPs. Very few had actually

read the papers in question, but relied on sources of evidence rather than the evidence per se. That is, they

were more likely to accept the findings if these were passed on to them by someone they trusted – whether

this was a highly regarded journal summarizing the findings or a respected colleague. Reinforcement was

required from several sources before GPs were persuaded of the need to alter their own clinical practice.

Thus, although the evidence in question was located at the hard (quantitative) end of the methods spectrum,

it was evaluated qualitatively by GPs and qualitative methods were required in order to study the process

involved.

Qualitative methods can help us to understand apparently illogical behaviours. One of the best-known studies

in this category was Hilary Graham's (1993) work on economically disadvantaged lone mothers and their

smoking behaviour. Given the cost of cigarettes, both financially and in health terms, smoking by women in

this situation could be regarded as being at variance with health advice and their own best interests. However,

Graham's research highlighted the positive functions of smoking for the women in terms of allowing them

to manage the exigencies of their circumstances and responsibilities. Smoking allowed the women to affirm

their adult status in the face of insistent and pervasive child-rearing demands, without necessitating either

lengthy engagement in this alternative pursuit or requiring them to leave the home or children in their care.

It was also a sociable activity in which they could participate with friends in the domestic setting. Compared

with other activities which might have conferred these same benefits, smoking was also relatively inexpensive

and nicotine, moreover, is a powerful appetite suppressant, enabling the women to limit their own food intake

while providing the optimum amount of food for children.

Even where individuals accept advice or templates advocating particular ways of behaving (whether these

relate to individual health-related behaviours or models of professional intervention) there can be ‘many a

slip betwixt cup and lip’. In other words, these are unlikely to translate seamlessly into changed practices.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is particularly well suited to studying context. It also excels at illuminating process,

whether this is organizational change or individual decision-making, since it allows us to examine how

changes affect daily procedures and interactions. This may lead to us uncovering unintended as well as

intended consequences of new arrangements.

PROVIDING INSIGHTS INTO UNINTENDED AS WELL AS INTENDED

CONSEQUENCES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

In the course of carrying out research into smoking policies in the workplace in the

late 1980s we selected several case studies of organizations at varying stages in the

process of developing and implementing such policies. Discussions with a range of staff

in one workplace alerted us to the unwitting potential for more egalitarian relationships,

as we learnt that, since the introduction of the smoking policy, one of the junior typists

now habitually took a cigarette break with one of the managing directors. These chance

meetings had provided the senior manager with insights into the illogicalities and

impracticalities in the way the typing pool was run and led to work being organized in a

different way thereafter. Needless to say, this is not a line of questioning that would have

occurred to the researchers, but in further case studies we did invite participants to reflect

more widely on the broader consequences of the new smoking policy in terms of lines of

communication and organizational hierarchies.

Recently my colleague (Julie Taylor) kindly provided me with a parallel anecdote, relating

to the unintended outcomes of the recent smoking ban in Irish pubs. Apparently, the

opportunity of engaging with members of the opposite (or, indeed, same) sex, afforded by

the practice of huddling outside to ‘have a fag’, has led to non-smokers feeling left out and

to the coining of a new word – ‘smirting’ (a hybrid of ‘smoking’ and ‘flirting’) – to celebrate

the dual possibilities involved.

Qualitative methods can explain apparent discrepancies, such as the low rate of formal reporting of racist

incidents in one area of Scotland, which was at variance with police officers’ experience ‘on the beat’ and their

knowledge of the localities involved. Colleagues at Glasgow University (with myself acting as consultant to

the project) carried out a questionnaire study, one-to-one interviews and focus groups with a range of people

living and working in the communities concerned. We were interested in unpicking how incidents came to

be defined as ‘racist’, and what people considered were the likely consequences of lodging a formal report.

Qualitative methods, in particular, allowed us to ‘problematize’ both the concept of racism and the process of

reporting, moving back several steps both from our own understandings and those of the police and looking

at how people made sense of these ideas on a daily basis. Focus groups, in particular, showed that ‘racism’

is a very complex issue and that the definition of incidents as racist is far from straightforward, since this is

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

embedded in multiple considerations and attributions, including perceptions of police and legal processes,

and the degree to which responses are premeditated or intended to cause offence (Barbour, 2007).

Qualitative research can ‘de-mystify’ by providing detailed accounts of experience and there is an extensive

catalogue of such research in relation to patients’ experience of chronic illness. Ethnographers, in particular,

often see their work as providing ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973: 5). Some commentators, for example,

Crombie with Davies (1996), have characterized qualitative research as being ‘descriptive’, using this to

distinguish it from quantitative research, which is seen as furnishing explanations.

Qualitative research, however, can and does provide explanations – albeit of a different type and focus than

quantitative studies.

Perhaps this misconception has been fuelled by the limitations of some variants of qualitative research. While

some such researchers seek to develop analytic explanations, and to interrogate and generate theory, there

is also a body of qualitative research that seeks solely to ‘bear witness’ rather than bringing theoretical or

disciplinary concerns to bear on understanding the data generated. Some such work purports to illuminate

‘lived experience’, which is a term that particularly exercises one of my colleagues, who points out that this

involves a tautology. Such a description may also serve to elevate to the academic arena work more akin to

that of the stable of ‘confessional journalism’. While the intent of such work may be admirable, this represents

the very least of what qualitative research can achieve. Even if researchers identify with the more limited

aspiration to elucidate experience, they might still benefit from questioning their methods and developing

a more robust approach to data analysis. If such studies paid more attention to sampling, identifying and

explaining patterning in the data, they could say much more about the mechanisms involved and would,

therefore, be much better placed, not only in relation to advancing disciplinary theoretical debates, but also

with regard to making recommendations relevant to policy or practice. This is, after all, more likely than are

empathic accounts per se to ameliorate conditions for those whose cause such studies seek to champion.

(These issues are also highly pertinent to Action Research, which is the subject of Chapter 8.)

THE RANGE OF QUALITATIVE METHODS AND TRADITIONS

Before moving on to enumerate the principal ways of generating data in qualitative research and their

attendant philosophical underpinnings, is it necessary to make a distinction between ‘methods’ – the specific

practical measures and tools employed to access or create data through different forms of interaction

with those we are studying – and ‘methodology’ – the more general discussion about the assumptions

underpinning different methods and the implications, challenges and limitations of choices for the process of

conducting research and its ultimate products.

Documentary and visual sources

Although this book concentrates on the active generation of data through interaction with research

‘respondents’ or ‘participants’, there is a substantial amount of qualitative research that relies on pre-existing

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

materials as sources of data. Biographers and social historians have routinely drawn on diaries, letters and

archival material in their work, capitalizing on the properties of such material to be used to explore issues

which might not have been current at the time of their production. This can increase the capacity of such

materials to shed light on events and how these were perceived by individuals at a particular point in time,

without the attendant concern about the representational intent that might arise when considering items

produced more recently or for research purposes – although writing for posterity is, in itself, a powerful motive

and there is no guarantee that such documents do not wilfully distort.

Prior (2004: 375) has recently bemoaned the de-emphasis on written documents in scholarship and methods

text, and the attendant privileging of oral data generated through talk and interaction. However, there are

some examples of researchers who have utilized both past and contemporary documents to provide data

for their analyses. David Armstrong (1983) turned his attention to medical textbooks and analyzed the

ways in which these have defined the patient and the body. Seale analyzed English language newspaper

stories relating to representation of people with cancer appearing during one selected week. His analyses

centred on the use of militaristic language and sporting metaphors (Seale, 2001a) and religious themes

(Seale, 2001b) and provided valuable insights into how people with cancer are continuously and often

unthinkingly constructed. Independently produced texts are also highly relevant with regard to understanding

how societies and individuals make sense of important and challenging issues such as death and disaster.

Bridget Fowler (2005) has recently studied obituaries as texts, and Mike Brennan (2006) has focused on

analyzing the recent phenomenon of condolence books. In all of these cases the focus of the analyses

transcends the original intent of the materials and provides an alternative frame of reference, highlighting

the complex functions and significance of texts as these are produced and consumed (Prior, 2004). As Prior

(2004: 388) comments: ‘Documents are never inert’.

The embeddedness of texts is crucial to our understanding of how these work, and Prior's advice to the

novice researcher suggests that employing document analysis alongside other qualitative methods may be

particularly fruitful. He urges them to ‘look at the documentation, not merely for its content but more at how it

is produced, how it functions in episodes of daily interaction, and how, exactly, it circulates’ (Prior, 2004: 388).

Document analysis is sometimes included in mixed methods approaches, particularly in the field of action

research, where documents may help to place interventions within the broader policy context. An ongoing

PhD student's project, for example, is currently looking at stakeholder involvement in the development

of diabetes services, and has drawn on both national and local policy documents, looking at how lay

involvement, in particular, is constructed and how it can be built into the new structure of ‘Managed Clinical

Networks’.

This list is forever expanding as new technologies arrive and possibilities expand. For example, qualitative

researchers have also been turning their attention to the potential afforded by visual methods. This has

involved a range of approaches, whereby visual images have been treated as a source of data for analysis,

as well as a way of eliciting data, and representing findings. Photographs and videos, in particular, afford a

novel way of researching topics or issues that may be elusive or hard to capture in terms of the capacity of

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

the spoken word. Because of their ready accessibility, such methods afford great potential for use in more

participative approaches, including action research. Like other qualitative methods, such materials can and,

indeed, should be employed collaboratively and reflexively (Pink, 2004). Given the development of on-line

publishing there are a wealth of possibilities in terms of photo-essays, videoessays and hypermedia links,

resulting in qualitative methods practice that is constantly in a state of flux. (For further discussion of visual

methods, see also Banks (2007). A more recent source of ready-made data is the internet and a growing

number of researchers have harvested material from online chat-rooms and discussion groups, using this

as a basis for their qualitative analysis of the ‘text’ thus produced. (Some of the implications for developing

qualitative research to draw on this resource are further explored in Chapter 13.)

Observational fieldwork

This method was widely used by anthropologists studying other cultures, but has also been popular within

sociology, where it has allowed researchers to see how work or social practices are enacted on a daily

basis. It affords an opportunity to view behaviour in a naturalistic setting, akin to the ‘fly on the wall’ format

so beloved of television documentaries, where the influence of the researcher is minimal and can uncover

inconsistencies between how people perceive and present their own involvement and what they actually do in

practice. Thus, it can illuminate the discrepancies between intent and outcome. This method is the mainstay

of ethnography (see Chapter 4), which does sometimes employ other methods alongside observational

fieldwork, including analysis of documents and interviews or focus group discussions.

Interviews

One-to-one interviews are perhaps the most commonly used method in the qualitative ‘toolbox’. Indeed,

quantitative studies sometimes also refer to the use of interviews, but, here, are usually referring to more

tightly structured schedules. The hallmark of interviewing in qualitative research is the use of open questions,

which allow respondents to focus on the issues of greatest importance to them, rather than the agenda

being determined entirely by the researcher's interests. Most qualitative researchers favour the use of semi-

structured interviews, which allow for the ordering of questions to be employed flexibly to take account of

the priority accorded each topic by the interviewee. Chapter 5 is devoted to interviews and also discusses in

detail the role and contribution of narrative interviews.

Focus groups

Focus groups have become much more popular in the social sciences over the past ten years or so. Since

focus groups are of somewhat mixed parentage, drawing on the marketing research tradition, organizational

research and community development, this has given rise to some confusion regarding terminology. Some

researchers refer to group interviews, which I would see as veering towards the more structured end of the

spectrum, with the researcher putting each question to each of the participants in turn, whereas focus group

discussions focus on the interaction between participants, with the researcher taking a less active role in

directing talk. As is argued in Chapter 6, focus group research is inherently flexible and can be employed in

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

the exploratory phase of projects to inform the development of more structured ‘tools’ such as questionnaires,

or even for developing consensus guidelines for clinical management. They are also, however, a useful

– and in some respects unrivalled – stand-alone method whose value lies in their capacity to illuminate

group processes and the way in which meanings and even action plans are developed and refined through

interaction.

Diaries

Although frequently used as part and parcel of survey research, diaries are less frequently employed

in qualitative research. They can, however, provide useful insights with regard to what is happening in

respondents’ lives between interviews carried out at various points in the course of a longitudinal study and

can be used prospectively (Elliott, 1997). Diaries can be as structured or unstructured as the researcher

wishes, and can be valuable in identifying issues for exploration in interviews, which might not otherwise have

come to the researcher's attention. Although, in common with the personal diary, which is a popular source

for biographers, they tend to focus on individuals’ experiences, these need not be confined to the purely

‘confessional’. Diaries can provide otherwise elusive contextual details and thought processes involved in

making choices and decisions and can also be used to record intentions. They provide scope for articulating

issues that might not be picked up in interviews and for accessing what would otherwise remain ‘hidden’ or

‘muted’ accounts (Elliott, 1997).

Diaries can also be used to good effect in the context of participatory research. If, for example, participants

are invited to reflect on the focus and conduct of the research project – a respondent version of the ‘fieldwork

diary’ (as traditionally kept by anthropologists, but a useful reflective tool for all qualitative researchers) – this

can provide a mechanism for ensuring that the concerns of those taking part in research are incorporated into

the design and analysis.

Diaries are unlikely to be used as a ‘stand-alone’ method, but can be used to advantage in mixed methods

studies, which may seek to combine different qualitative methods or use a mixture of quantitative and

qualitative methods of collecting data. Mixed methods approaches, and their potential and challenges, are

explored in Chapter 7.

Enhanced case records

This is an approach which is helpful in studying professional or clinical practice, but which, again, is unlikely

to be used in isolation. ‘Enhanced case records’ (McKeganey and Boddy, 1988), designed by researchers

and guided by their interests, provide an opportunity to bridge the gap between the details contained in

pre-existing records, which (even if researchers had permission to access these) are unlikely to yield the

information required by researchers since these have been compiled with a different goal in mind. For an

example of the use of enhanced case records see Chapter 2.

Case study research

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

Although this is frequently presented as a distinctive approach to qualitative – and, indeed, quantitative –

research, I have chosen in this book to discuss case studies under the general heading of sampling (see

Chapter 2 on research design). This is where the case study approach pays true dividends, since it allows the

researcher, through careful selection of ‘cases’ (whether these are research settings or individuals), to make

instructive comparisons. Even where research involves a single case study, the reasons for choosing this

setting and due consideration of its ‘typicality’ (or by virtue of particular unusual features) allow the researcher

to speculate as to the ‘transferability’ or ‘theoretical generalizability’ (see the discussion later in this chapter

on evaluating qualitative research) of the study's findings.

Critical incident technique

This is another approach which is sometimes referred to as a distinctive qualitative method. It has its origins

in the aeronautical industry where it was developed to study ‘near misses’ of aircraft and, by focusing on what

(almost) went wrong, was able to identify the more elusive factors that give rise to unproblematic outcomes

the rest of the time. Again I have chosen to discuss this under the heading of sampling (see Chapter 2) as

it involves a deliberate attempt to seek out ‘negative’ or ‘deviant’ cases and to use these as a resource in

theorizing about more common patterns. Although it is most often invoked in relation to considerations of

research design and sampling, the ‘critical incident technique’ embodies an idea very similar to that informing

the notion of ‘analytic induction’, which refers to the important role played by exceptions in the process of

analysis and the refining of our explanatory frameworks. This will be revisited in Chapters 10 and 11, which

are concerned with analyzing qualitative data. (For a detailed history of the critical incident technique and its

use within qualitative research see Butterfield et al., 2005.)

Action research

Some research aims explicitly at changing professional practice or improving the circumstances of

disadvantaged or disenfranchised groups. Such projects frequently rely on mixed methods designs and

emphasize the cyclical nature of the research endeavour, moving continuously between the phases of

identification of the problem, planning of the intervention, implementation and evaluation of the change. This

type of research is the subject of Chapter 8.

THE RANGE OF QUALITATIVE TRADITIONS

Commenting on the challenges of teaching qualitative methods, Martyn Hammersley asks the question that

exercises all who are involved in this endeavour: how best to ‘prepare students for participation in a research

community that is riven by methodological, philosophical and even political disputes?’ (Hammersley, 2004:

556).

Before attempting to outline the main positions and approaches to doing qualitative research it is necessary to

introduce the related, but separate, concepts of ‘epistemology’ and ‘ontology’.‘Epistemology’ refers to theories

of knowledge, how we come to know the world, and our ideas about the nature of evidence and knowledge.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

This concerns ‘the principles and rules by which you decide whether and how social phenomena can be

known, and how knowledge can be demonstrated’ (Mason, 1996: 13). ‘Ontology’ refers to our views as to

what constitutes the social world and how we can go about studying it.

It is also necessary to issue here a disclaimer, since I believe that any attempt to categorize qualitative

traditions in terms of their distinctiveness is doomed from the outset. Undoubtedly, the novice qualitative

researcher is likely to be assailed with a confusing variety of recommended approaches. The problem of

providing a clear and comprehensive run-down of the principal traditions is exacerbated by the existence of

several variants of virtually any approach, as these are espoused both by different disciplines and individual

researchers, who have each been exposed to a unique and sometimes idiosyncratic constellation of specific

techniques, methodological and philosophical approaches. This chapter has already highlighted the ways in

which individual motivations and different sorts of curiosity can influence the research questions we ask and

how we go about addressing these. Individual researchers are also likely to employ specific methods (such

as interviews or focus groups) and methodological approaches (such as conversation analysis or discourse

analysis) in a way that is congruent with their own preferred position and disciplinary legacy, choosing to

emphasize some aspects or properties of the approach or method and de-emphasize others. The particular

‘spin’ put on methods and approaches as each discipline and individual researcher adopts and adapts it,

renders problematic any attempt to produce a definitive typology. It is a fallacy to assume that a method or

even a broad approach produces similar data, interpretations and analyses, irrespective of the researcher

employing it (Barbour, 1998a).

I have sought, therefore, to provide a brief description of the main qualitative traditions, including their origins,

usage, and their epistemological and ontological underpinnings. However, in addition to examining claims as

to the distinctiveness of these orientations or sets of techniques, I have explored the overlaps and similarities.

Along with Seale (1999), I would argue that it is important to read around the various methodological

‘offerings’ available, with a view to weighing up the relevance of each – or, indeed, hybrids of two or more –

for the particular research topic in hand. This, of course, will be anathema to researchers intent on making a

case for a particular favoured approach. I would suggest, however, that we could all benefit from taking, at

the very least, a critical look at our own preferred methods and assumptions in the light of other approaches

and variants of these proposed by other researchers. Seale (1999: ix) advocates using the methodological

literature as ‘time out in the brain gymnasium’ and it is in this spirit that I offer the following summary.

Symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and phenomenology

The symbolic interactionist research tradition is associated particularly with the work of members of the

second wave of the Chicago School of sociology, who were active in the period following the Second World

War and who tended to concentrate on studying the social and interactional processes as enacted by

members of specific ‘cultures’, such as particular occupational groups (Hughes, 1958) or ‘underworlds’, for

example those of gambling, prostitution or fraud. Several researchers – including myself – have also used a

symbolic interactionist framework in order to study the process of professional socialization (e.g. Becker et

al. (1961) on medical students; Dingwall (1977) on health visitors; and Barbour (1983, 1984, 1985) on social

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

work students. This body of research has studied how new recruits’ engagement in collective interactional

activity both makes sense of and effects shifts in self-concepts and ways of looking at the world.

Blumer (1969: 184) outlines the assumptions that underpin the application of symbolic interactionism as

being:

… that human society is made up of individuals who have selves (that is, make indications to

themselves); that individual action is a construction and not a release, being built up by the individual

through noting and interpreting features of the situation in which he acts; that group or collective

action consists of the aligning of individual actions, brought about by the individuals’ interpreting or

taking into account each other's actions.

Although the Chicago School and, indeed, most proponents of symbolic interactionism have relied on

ethnographic fieldwork to generate data, interview or focus group transcripts are equally amenable to analysis

informed by this perspective and sympathetic theoretical approaches (such as those provided by Goffman's

(1974) ‘frame analysis’ which I used as the main theoretical framework for my own PhD). In contrast to many

of the methodological approaches developed more recently, symbolic interactionism did not purport – even at

the height of its popularity – to offer detailed guidance on how to ‘do’ such work. This may partly explain why

symbolic interactionism has latterly become unfashionable, rather than falling out of favour for its perceived

limitations.

In terms of staying the course,‘phenomenology’ and ‘ethnomethodology'have fared a little better than has

symbolic interaction, but fashions constantly change and may suddenly throw previously neglected

approaches into the spotlight. In scanning the current methodological literature or methods sections of

published papers, you are much more likely to come across discussion of ‘phenomenology’, which shares

many of the assumptions underpinning symbolic interaction, since both concentrate on the process of

interaction and active construction of meaning. A central figure in the development of the phenomenological

approach is Schutz (1972), who sought to extrapolate individuals’ and groups’ taken-for-granted or common-

sense categories, focusing on the notion of ‘accounts’. Phenomenology has been espoused by both

sociologists and psychologists, although the former are perhaps more likely to have employed ethnographic

methods. Ethnomethodology's pedigree situates it as developing around the same time as phenomenology

and bears many of the hallmarks of the influence of the work of Schutz. It is exemplified by the work

of Garfinkel (1967), who was concerned with how individuals build a stable social order both in specific

interactional encounters and in society more generally. Literally meaning ‘folk’ methods, ethnomethodology

again focused on common-sense practices in routine and everyday interaction, with an interest in what

happens when this is disrupted and expectations are breached. This last aspect perhaps explains its links

with conversation analysis (discussed below), which focuses, among other things, on how ‘repairs’ are

enacted and facilitated during the process of interactional exchanges. It aims to study the ‘local rationality’ of

members’ practices:

Why it makes sense, for participants, locally, in their practice context, to do things as they are done,

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

even if this is at odds with how these practices are planned, evaluated or accounted for ‘elsewhere’,

‘in theory’, or at higher hierarchical levels in an organization. (ten Have, 2004: 162)

Conversation analysis and discourse analysis

I have left until last discussion of these two more recent approaches to qualitative research, as they both

marry philosophical rationales with the elaboration of specific methods. Originating in the work of Harvey

Sacks (1972; who, incidentally, had worked with Garfinkel), the focus on psychiatric and psychodynamic

theorizing still informs conversation analysis (CA). This approach has been employed across a wide range

of disciplines, including ‘anthropology, sociology, communication, linguistics, sociolinguistics and pragmatics,

as well as psychology’ (Drew, 2003: 132). It focuses on talk not merely as a medium through which views

are communicated, but emphasizes what talk allows interactants to accomplish. Puchta and Potter (2004: 9)

explain:

Conversation analysts in particular have argued that ordinary talk, mundane talk, the kind of

everyday chat we have with one another is fundamental to understanding all kinds of more

specialized interaction … Talk is … something we use to perform an enormous variety of the

practical tasks of living.

Conversation analysis focuses on detailed analysis of talk in various types of social interaction, elucidating

the everyday and routine aspects such as turn-taking and pauses. It is concerned with the systematic patterns

and normative frameworks that comprise talk, and this can provide insights that it is not possible to produce

using other methods, since it elaborates:

how interactants signal to others that they are ending their turn at talk or that they wish to talk,

select and change the topics of discussion, and display to others that they are properly attentive to,

and involved in, the interaction. Analyzing these issues involves paying close attention to features

of social interaction that are often missed or glossed over by even the most careful observers of

institutional settings who have only one opportunity to observe each social interaction. (Miller, 1997b:

87)

Peräkylä (2004: 166) emphasizes that, although it is theoretically informed, conversation analysis ‘has

developed through empirical studies that have focused on specific observable phenomena’. This underlines

the emphasis on naturally occurring interactions, rather than researcher-convened encounters. Although

concerned first and foremost with the text produced, CA studies do also, in some contexts, examine the

consequences for the encounter, including the outcome and how this is achieved. Not surprisingly, since

it can allow the researcher to study how ‘micro’ relationships (including professional–client encounters) are

enacted, this approach has been utilized frequently to examine medical consultations (see, for example, many

of the papers in the journal Communication and Medicine). It has also been employed in other professional

settings, for example to provide an understanding of how social workers manage exchanges with clients

through persuasion (Suoninen and Jokinen, 2005).

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

Both conversation analysis and discourse analysis rely on a set of conventions for transcribing, which allow

for the minutiae of interaction to be captured, including timing of pauses, overlaps in talk, and details such as

rising and falling inflections, and even a laugh inserted mid-word. (For a comprehensive guide to this method,

known as Jeffersonian transcription, see Silverman (1993) or the appendix provided by Puchta and Potter

(2004). Given its focus on the mechanics of talk, it has been presented as having a ‘restricted notion of culture

and [paying] scant attention to that which is beyond text’ (Stokoe and Smithson, 2001: 228).

Discourse analysis (DA) is described by Willig (2003: 164) as having emerged from ethnomethodology and

conversation analysis. It also has its origins in the discipline of linguistics or sociolinguistics (Hepburn and

Potter, 2004). It has, however, ‘emerged in different disciplinary environments’: ‘Often these traditions are

structured by, and against, the basic issues of the [various] parent discipline(s): how sentences cohere

linguistically into discourse; how social organization is made up; how cognition is respecified in interaction.’

(Hepburn and Potter, 2004: 180).

This description reflects the related, but somewhat different focus of linguistics, sociology and psychology.

Willig (2003) distinguishes between two variants of discourse analysis – ‘discursive psychology’ and what she

terms ‘Foucauldian discourse analysis’, presenting these as addressing different sorts of research questions.

She views the first approach as allowing for the study of how participants use discursive resources and with

what effects – what she refers to as ‘the action orientation of talk’ (2003:163). Although not developed by

Foucault himself, ‘Foucauldian discourse analysis’ is based on his concept of the ‘discursive regime’ and is

concerned ‘with language and its role in the constitution of social and psychological life’ (2003: 171). Citing

Parker (1992), Willig elaborates: ‘From a Foucauldian point of view, discourses facilitate and limit, enable

and constrain what can be said, by who, where and when’ (2003: 171). Some other commentators, however,

argue that such distinctions are not helpful (e.g. Miller, 1997c).

Writers such as Willig emphasize the importance of psychological theory, arguing that both approaches to

discourse analysis involve the use of concepts such as memory, attribution and identity. While this certainly

renders discourse analysis amenable to the study of psychological phenomena, it can, however, provide

an extremely fruitful approach for researchers with different disciplinary concerns, such as sociologists, for

example, many of whom are also interested in studying identity and the active presentation of self through talk

and performance. Sociologists are also very interested in what Willig describes as the main thrust of what she

calls ‘Foucauldian discourse analysis’: namely ‘the role of discourse in wider social processes of legitimation

and power’ (Willig, 2003: 171).

LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBILITIES

If you have found somewhat confusing this brief foray through several decades and traditions, then you are

by no means alone. Having posed the question as to how best to prepare students for an academic setting

characterized by disagreement and competing paradigms, Hammersley (2004: 557) concludes that ‘we

should encourage students to become neither ostriches nor fighting cocks’. This presents quite a challenge,

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

especially in a publishing context that can be seen as privileging the new and innovative at the expense of

the pragmatic.

There are considerable overlaps, however, between approaches that, in some quarters, are hailed as

being distinctive – even unique. It is only by engaging with this methodological literature, interrogating the

boundaries between approaches and cultivating an open-mindedness about how to go about generating and

analyzing our own data that we can ensure that we develop the full potential of qualitative research and its

richness. There is nothing shameful about developing hybrid approaches. Indeed, Norman Denzin (1989) is

cited by Melia (1997) as having made what she terms ‘a heroic attempt to pull a good deal together under the

term interpretive inter-actionism’, which:

signifies an attempt to join traditional symbolic interactionist thought with participant observation

and ethnography; semiotics and fieldwork; postmodern ethnographic research; naturalistic studies;

creative interviewing; the case-study method; hermeneutic phenomenology; cultural studies and

feminist critiques of positivism. (Melia, 1997: 28)

As Melia concludes, this may be ‘an impossible task’. She points out, however, that ‘it puts interactionist

thought centre stage while allowing space for current methods debates’ (Melia, 1997: 28).

Virtually all of the qualitative approaches outlined here have been subjected to criticism on the grounds that

they focus on the ‘micro’ to the exclusion of the ‘macro’ and ignore the relationship between the two. Such

a separation, however, is not inevitable: although they certainly concentrated on the form and content of

interactional episodes, the sociologists of the Chicago School had all been trained in the classical sociological

tradition and remained mindful of the importance of social structural issues, including class and status, and I

would argue that these can be seen to inform the accounts produced, even while these focus on the ‘micro’.

The theoretical insights provided by such studies can offer an explanation as to how these processes impact

on society at a higher level than that of the small group. However, this is possibly a property of the theoretical

and disciplinary grounding of the researchers involved, rather than an inherent capacity of the approach.

Referring to a particular body of sociological work, including that of Crow (2002), Mason (2006: 14) points out:

There is, for example, a long qualitative tradition that sees everyday or interpersonal interactions,

life experiences, narratives, histories, and so on, as informing us not only about personal or ‘micro’

experience, but crucially also about the changing social and economic conditions, cultures and

institutional frameworks through which ordinary lives are lived. In this sense, the macro is known

through the lens of the micro – social change is charted in how it is lived and experienced in the

everyday.

Some promising signs are also evident in what might be a somewhat unexpected quarter – the ‘softest’

end of the qualitative spectrum, represented by the ‘micro’ approaches of CA, DA and ethnography. The

distinctions that various commentators have sought to make between these orientations and methods may

not be an altogether helpful one and there are some signs that these approaches may be converging. Some

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

DA researchers, moreover, have adopted semi-structured interviews, moving away from reliance on naturally-

occurring interaction and, as Miller (1997c: 155) points out, ethnographers can, in any case, produce ‘near

transcripts’. Other writers, such as Myers and Macnaghten (1999), have argued that focus group data can be

analyzed as text. Some versions of discourse analysis are closer to CA, while others pay greater attention to

context and some commentators view discourse as ideological language that produces culture through ‘an

explicit repertoire of justifications and explanations, and an implicit, embedded theory about why people act

the way they do’ (Merry, 1990: 110, cited by Miller, 1997c: 163). This emphasis on context also affords the

possibility for comparison and, thus, for interrogation and elaboration of theoretical frameworks, rather than

merely illuminating ‘micro’ processes.

Miller (1997c) makes a plea for an interesting synthesis of ethnomethodologicallyinformed ethnography and

conversation analytic techniques in order to study institutional discourses. She explains that approaches to

discourse analysis that focus on concrete procedures also

involve strategies and techniques for analyzing how competing discourses are articulated in settings,

and how interactants’ use of institutional categories and vocabularies is related to the interactional

contingencies associated with the interaction order and social settings, including their social

positions in the settings. (Miller, 1997c: 164–165)

This also hints at the potential for such an approach to begin to redress the imbalance between the ‘micro’

and the ‘macro’. Miller (1997c: 168) argues: ‘Ethnographic and conversation analytic research strategies

and techniques involve especially useful procedures for seeing and analyzing occasions when dominant

discourses are displaced by alternative discourses’. While Miller may well be referring here to alternative

discourses as created and contested in one-to-one or small-group interaction, this also holds promise in terms

of allowing qualitative researchers to address wider social, cultural and political change. To date, however,

most qualitative research has not claimed to provide explanations for wider social developments. Seale

(1999: 39) comments:

For the most part, the qualitative alternative has been presented as a vehicle for answering

questions about what is happening in a particular setting or howrealities of everyday life are

accomplished. The issue of why things happen in the way they do is more rarely addressed as

an explicit project, though a place for this in qualitative research is increasingly argued as the

threatening shadow of determinism [or the search for underlying causes and rules] appears to have

receded.

Encouraged by no less an example than that provided by Norman Denzin in his attempt to produce a

‘composite’ approach to qualitative research, I find myself repeatedly advising current PhD students to

adopt a broadly social constructionist approach (Berger and Luckman, 1966). This, I would argue, is the

most promising potential solution in terms of bridging this important gap in the capacity and aspirations of

qualitative research that has been identified by Seale. Depending on how it is employed – and I would

advocate a broad and permissive or inclusive definition – social constructionism can effectively marry the

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

‘micro’ attention to interaction (advocated by symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology

– and even CA and DA) and more ‘macro’ elements (taking into account the social, economic, political and

policy context) in which data is being generated and with regard to which it should be analyzed. Structural

features can be accessed and interrogated through careful, theoretically informed sampling, and even the

‘micro’ can thus be subjected to comparative analysis (this argument is presented throughout the chapters

that follow). This approach is also in line with the view of social constructionism espoused by Gergen (1973),

who highlighted that phenomena are specific to a particular time, place and culture, arguing for what he called

a ‘historical social psychology’.

DIFFICULTIES OR RESOURCES?

The idea of predispositions, as outlined earlier, also goes some way towards understanding some of the

problems that may be encountered by researchers engaging in qualitative studies. Many researchers,

particularly those who have been trained in the quantitative tradition, may eagerly embrace qualitative

methods while continuing to subscribe to some lingering assumptions which are no longer appropriate and

which lead them to perceive or, indeed, manufacture problems where these do not really exist – at least not if

one shifts one's perspective to conceive of these not as challenges but as resources.

‘Truth’ is relative

One of the most persistent questions raised in relation to reporting qualitative research findings relates to their

veracity – ‘How do you know that people were telling you the truth?’ The answer is, of course, that none of

us can ever know this for certain. While it is common practice in survey research to include cross-checking

questions that are designed to catch respondents out in terms of providing information that seeks to mislead,

qualitative research deals with contradiction in a very different way, that recasts inconsistency as a resource

or intriguing analytic puzzle rather than a problem of disconfirmation.

Qualitative researchers generally subscribe to the adage that ‘if people believe things to be real, then they

are real in their consequences (Thomas and Thomas, 1928). In the course of carrying out my PhD research

into professional socialization for social work, I was alerted to the popularity of the belief, among students,

that social workers were deserting the profession after short periods of employment due to burnout or

disillusionment. An examination of the scanty figures available established that attrition was no greater than

for other comparable professions, such as teaching or nursing, both of which also involved a predominantly

female workforce with the attendant likelihood of career breaks. However, this belief in the face of less than

compelling evidence led me to question why the idea seemed to hold such appeal for the social work students

I was studying. The belief may have been unfounded, but the consequences for retention in the social work

profession could, indeed, be far-reaching, if most new social workers held similar views. Misconceptions may

have their own internal validity and public or lay perspectives can be very sophisticated. This is something

which the advertising industry have recognized and their use of qualitative methods – especially focus groups

– has involved probing for sometimes illogical associations made by consumers with respect to products or

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

potential advertising campaigns which may impact on their purchasing decisions and brand loyalties.

Multiple realities

Sometimes apparent contradictions surface not in the context of an individual's account but in relation to

two competing accounts of the same event. Of course people put a certain ‘spin’ on a story, telling it

to make a particular point, and a health care professional's or policeman's version of events is likely to

differ markedly from the account provided by a patient or someone who has been arrested. Two workshop

sessions unexpectedly provided an example of two conflicting versions of the same event – in this case an

admission to hospital. While a patient in one workshop told her story to illustrate the incompetence of medical

professionals, a health care professional (who had apparently witnessed this same incident) did not have the

emotional investment that the patient had, and chose instead to present this as a routine call-out dealt with in

a fittingly professional manner. Clearly the two versions were being produced from very different standpoints

and illustrate how two people can process things according to varying sets of criteria, reflecting the nature of

their involvement.

The role of qualitative research is not to determine which account is the more accurate or ‘truthful’, but is

rather to use these accounts as a resource in order to understand how ‘situated accounts’ are told in a way

that allow speakers to achieve a different purpose through emphasizing some aspects of their stories and de-

emphasizing others. We all give a slightly different account of ourselves and our actions to a group of friends

‘down the pub’ than we would present, for example, at a job interview. Focus group participants – and our

dinner party acquaintances – often engage in telling ‘horror stories’ which tend to be amusing and make for

compelling listening. Indeed, most of us will have been involved in embellishing such tales to dramatic effect.

Views are not static

Novice qualitative researchers often complain that it is extremely hard to assign their respondents into the

categories they are employing to try to make sense of their views and perceptions. A colleague who had

held a series of focus group discussions with health care professionals was attempting to place their views in

terms of whether they were supportive or dismissive of the importance of breast feeding. She exclaimed,‘Just

when I think I can safely put someone in one box they go and say the opposite!’ While her frustration is

understandable, this is a difficulty that she had imposed upon herself through conceptualizing views as being

dichotomous and fixed. Incidentally, this notion often surfaces in relation to trying to utilize interview or focus

group data as ‘back door’ surveys. This is problematic – but misguided – for two reasons: first, qualitative

research excels at unpicking views, uncovering the subtleties and graduations involved rather than applying

crude measures; and, secondly, since qualitative research sampling does not aspire to representativeness

(see Chapter 2) measuring views will not produce statistically generalizable results. It is those self-same

recalcitrant comments – those that defy categorization – that comprise the most valuable pieces of qualitative

data. They are the fascinating grey areas that force the researcher to question straightforward models or

typologies and go on ultimately to develop more sophisticated explanations. Qualitative methods, by virtue

of their immediacy and capacity to encourage respondents to question their ideas, may elicit contradictory

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

remarks – even within the space of one interview or focus group discussion.

This is only a problem if one conceives qualitative methods as providing a ‘back door’ route to measuring

attitudes, which is really the preserve of quantitative methods. Provided that researchers pay attention to such

contradictions and explore these thoroughly in their analyses, qualitative methods can afford unique insights

into the process of change, unpicking the limitations people place around their views, the circumstances or

situations that may cause them to shift perspectives and the contexts or settings in which they are likely to

espouse different attitudes.

EVALUATING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND ITS CONTRIBUTION

Some critics of qualitative research in the past have railed against what might look from the outside as an

approach that relies on ‘making things up as you go along’. While quantitative research relies on a roughly

linear model in terms of research design – necessitated by the scale and financial resources required –

flexibility is the hallmark of qualitative research. Even the focus of the research can alter as data is generated

and preliminary analysis suggests a new or slightly shifted emphasis. With respect to sampling decisions

(discussed fully in Chapter 2), it is not essential to stipulate detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria at the

outset of a project, together with detailed sampling strategies, as these can be augmented as the project

unfolds and potential new groups (or rationales for bringing a different range of individuals together in a group

if doing focus group research) are identified. (This does, however, raise important challenges in terms of

requirements of ethics committees, as discussed in Chapter 3.) Since qualitative research does not seek to

recruit representative samples, but to encompass diversity, expanding sampling in this iterative fashion does

not pose a problem in terms of generalizability, since statistical generalizability is not a goal in the first place.

This does not mean, however, that qualitative researchers can shirk the responsibility of ensuring rigour. It is

important to be transparent about the process of analysis, in particular how coding categories were developed

and used. Reassurance is also required that the researcher has interrogated the data thoroughly, drawing

on the whole dataset, and that s/he has avoided simply picking out the sections (or individual articulate

respondents) that support favoured theories or explanations while ‘sweeping under the carpet’ any potentially

contradictory examples. Some consideration should also be given to placing study findings in context, by

demonstrating when and where they might be transferable to other situations or settings and to how they add

to the knowledge already produced by previous studies.

The growing acceptability of qualitative methods and the willingness of powerful institutions, such as

medicine, to seek to incorporate such research knowledge into the ‘evidence base’, has led to several

attempts at developing checklists for evaluating qualitative research papers (e.g. Popay et al., 1998). While

this development has shone a much needed spotlight on qualitative research practice and has involved

a long overdue acknowledgment that there is such a thing as bad qualitative research, there is a danger

in that these checklists can be used prescriptively, despite the original intentions of their initiators. I have

argued elsewhere (Barbour, 2001) that slavish adherence to checklists can be invidious in that it can lead to

researchers adopting ‘technical fixes’ in writing up and in designing and conducting qualitative studies. I have

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research

described this situation as ‘the tail’ (i.e. the awareness of and desire to comply with a set of criteria) ‘wagging

the dog’ (i.e. the qualitative research endeavour).

This does not mean, however, that we can abandon all attempts to evaluate qualitative studies. Instead,

I would argue that we should read such accounts critically, asking a range of questions. The important

difference in such an approach is that it is not necessary to tick a ‘yes’ in response to each and every question,

but rather to place the studies in context, taking account of the constraints under which they were carried out

and judging their relevance for the task in hand. We are generally unlikely to be reading qualitative research

with an eye to grading it or deciding whether or not to include it in our literature review. There is little point

in taking an ‘all or nothing’ attitude – a study that may be found wanting in some respects may well provide

useful hints on methodology or focus on questions in developing our own ‘tools’.

In seeking to appraise qualitative research papers critically using a scoring system modified from a

quantitative template, we are in danger of missing the point. It is essential that we don't slip into the tempting

but ultimately unproductive activity of criticizing an orange for not being more like an apple. The exercise

that accompanies this opening chapter, therefore, presents a set of questions that you can use to evaluate

qualitative papers. It emphasizes the need to locate qualitative research in its rightful context – as a distinct

approach with its own internal consistency and means of ensuring rigour. Qualitative research is underpinned

by a set of assumptions that are at variance with many of the tenets of quantitative research. Although there

is an inevitable risk of over-simplification, these can usefully be summarized as follows:

HINTS ON USING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

• Qualitative research asks different sorts of question – not those relating to outcomes or strengths of

association, but questions about process, understandings and beliefs.

• It excels at illuminating context and process as a route for explaining actions and events.

• Under the broad banner of qualitative research, here is a wide range of competing approaches,

underpinned by differing philosophical assumptions and favouring a variety of methods.

• Certain methods and methodological approaches appeal more to some individuals than to others.

• Don't be afraid of using a hybrid approach – the main thing is to be able to justify your rationale.

• Qualitative methods can be used in conjunction with quantitative methods – or other qualitative

methods – in order to illuminate different issues or contexts.

• Individual researchers are likely to put their own ‘stamp’ on methods and methodological approaches

as they conduct qualitative research, as are individual disciplines.

• Qualitative research involves an iterative process, whereby the research design, ‘tools’ and even

the research question can evolve as the project unfolds. This allows for the testing of emergent

‘hypotheses’ or explanations.

• In reviewing qualitative papers we need to ask different questions from those used to review

quantitative studies.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 24 Introducing Qualitative Research