Comprehensive Overview: What IS Qualitative Research?

by Nicholas Markette, Ed.D.

Ascolta per capire di non rispondere (Listen to understand not to respond) is an Italian saying that suggests listening to another’s words is a path to understanding the person and how they understand their world. Thus, it is with qualitative research: “The most basic definition of qualitative research is that it uses words as data” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p.3).

However, gathering words is not the objective of qualitative research, exploring the meaning behind those words is the aim (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Paul Lazarsfeld, considered the father of qualitative research, developed empirical social research, which relied on interviews and groups discussions to understand human behavior (Jeřábek, 2001). Since Lazarsfeld’s early work, qualitative research gained popularity across an array of fields like anthropology, education, nursing, psychology, sociology, and marketing (Guest et al, 2013).

However, consensus is lacking a single unified definition of qualitative research (Guest et al, 2013; Yin, 2016). For the purpose of this discussion, qualitative research will refer to the process of exploring and understanding how individuals and/or groups describe, perceive, report, and/or make meaning of human phenomena according to specific qualitative designs like case studies, phenomenology, action research, grounded theory, and narrative inquiry (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Yin, 2016).

Qualitative research is a large topic with many dimensions. A discussion leading to

understanding this broad approach to research should include essential features, a contrast to quantitative research, the importance of alignment, trustworthiness, and major qualitative designs. These aspects of qualitative research demonstrate how qualitative research helps to dig deeply into understanding diverse human phenomena. Not only are humans diverse, but qualitative thinkers are also similarly diverse in thought leading to many ideas about qualitative research. The scholar is open to learning from this diversity of thought.

Essential Features of Qualitative Research

Since there is no consensus on a common definition, exploring the features of qualitative research gives shape to this methodology. While other concepts exist, according to Yin (2013), there are five features to qualitative research.

1. Studying the Meaning of People’s Lives Under Real World Conditions

Studying the meaning of people’s lives under real world conditions encourages study participants to express themselves without undue, outside interference. Researchers minimize social interactions that may inhibit authentic expression (Yin, 2013, p. 8).

2. Representing the Views and Perspectives of the People in a Study

Qualitative research explores participant perspectives not the researcher’s values, preconceptions, or meanings. Qualitative research presents the views and perspectives of the participants (Yin, 2013, p. 8).

3. Covering the Contextual Conditions

Qualitative research covers the context—social, institutional, and environmental—within which participants live. The context allows deeper understanding into human perspectives (Yin, 2013, p. 8).

4. Contributing Insights into Existing or Emerging Concepts

Qualitative research may explain events by contributing to existing concepts or helping develop new theories (i.e., Grounded Theory). Qualitative research allows for the interpretation of data in light of existing and potentially new lines of inquiry (Yin, 2013, p.8-9).

5. Striving to Use Multiple Sources of Evidence

Qualitative research may gather and combine multiple sources of data or data from multiple participants (Yin, 2013, p. 9).

To better understand qualitative research, it is helpful to compare Yin’s (2013) five features of qualitative research with Braun and Clarke’s (2019) 10 fundamentals of qualitative research that suggested qualitative research:

• Is about meaning not numbers.

• Doesn’t provide a single answer but one story among many that could be told.

• Treats context as important.

• Can be experiential or critical validating meaning, views, meaning, perspective or experiences, or taking an interrogative approach.

• Is underpinned by ontological assumptions because how one explains being or reality will shape the resulting research.

• Is underpinned by epistemological assumptions because how one explains knowing shapes the corresponding qualitative research.

• Involved a qualitative methodology or broader framework within which the research is conducted.

• Uses all sorts of data such as interview, observation, questionnaire, and journal data (i.e., interactive or textual).

• Involves ‘thinking qualitatively’ or being enculturated in the research approach.

• Values subjectivity and reflexivity (p. 19)

While there are similarities with Yin’s features, Braun and Clarke’s fundamentals demonstrate the lack of agreement regarding qualitative research. Consequently, it is important for scholars to remain open minded as they think critically about different research schools of thought (i.e., Yin, Braun & Clarke). Synthesizing differences in perspectives is helpful and is consistent with the spirit of qualitative thinking. The goal is not to choose a side, but to synthesize the differences as one refines their approach to qualitative inquiry. For example, Yin (2018) noted that case studies may be considered a method and design separate from qualitative. The important aspect of the conversation is not whether Yin’s (2018) topic for discussion is right or wrong, but why does he broach this line of thinking and what can the scholar do with that perspective. Synthesizing these discussions allows the researcher to understand their respective research process more deeply.

Qualitative Research Contrasted Broadly with Quantitative Research

Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies have different orientations, but the lines are blurring (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017, p. 3). While quantitative seeks to confirm or reject hypotheses, qualitative explores phenomena. Moreover, qualitative and quantitative research differ in analytical objectives, questions posed, data sources, data produced, and flexibility in design (Mack et al., 2005, p. 2).

Quantitative may quantify variation while qualitative may describe variation. Quantitative may predict relationships (i.e., causal, correlative), but qualitative seeks to explain relationships. Quantitative research may provide a broad numerical look at a research problem while qualitative looks deeply into explaining how, why, and what (Mack et al., 2005, p. 3). In a timely example, quantitative polls can predict numerically who will win an election, but qualitative research can explain why people intend to vote the way they do.

Quantitative research presents closed research questions while qualitative asks open questions (Mack et al., 2005). A quantitative study may ask, “To what extent does x affect y?” while a qualitative study may ask, “How does a describe the lived experience of x and y.” The nature of the question dictates the line of inquiry into a social issue. Quantitative may examine what relationship exists between household income and high school graduation rates, but qualitative can explore how a high school student living in a low socio-economic status describes his or her experience high school.

Quantitative data is numbers and uses inferential statistics to answer research questions. Qualitative uses textual and/or observable data—often words—that provides insight into a human phenomenon. While quantitative assigns numerical values—even to human responses, and qualitative is often textual (i.e., audio and video recordings, field notes, etc.)

Finally, qualitative research offers flexibility that quantitative does not. While quantitative is a stable and closed design from the beginning to the end, qualitative is not. Qualitative inquiry is more malleable. Participant responses to interview questions may prompt the researcher to follow up with previously unplanned questions potentially leading to unexpected findings. Anecdotally, in one case study of an administration, a theme of fear emerged leading to follow up questions that uncovered a climate of leadership mistrust and fear. Quantitative does not offer the flexibility to adapt like qualitative research does.

Alignment in Qualitative Research

There is a reason why automobiles do not have wings. Wings do not align with the purpose cars serve nor with the venues on which cars travel. The need for convenient travel, the roads, the traffic signals, and the laws all align to provide an effective mode of transportation. Similarly, qualitative research alignment is a logical, orderly flow from the research problem, through the purpose of the research to the research questions. These elements may be considered the foundation (the problem) and frame (purpose and research questions) of the study. In addition, the method, design, and theoretical/conceptual framework must also be in harmony with the problem, purpose, and research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Finally, the framework for the research relies on ontology—referring to existence and reality—and epistemology—concerning the nature of knowing and knowledge (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 26). Therefore, alignment is best addressed holistically because alignment represents the sum of the parts—problem, purpose, research questions, concept/theory, sampling, data collection, methodology, and design. For example, if there is a societal need and gaps in the literature regarding how someone describes their lived experience as a doctoral candidate in an online environment, an aligned purpose statement may be ordered as, “The purpose of this qualitative descriptive phenomenological study is to explore how doctoral candidates describe the lived experience of completing an online doctoral program in The Southwest U.S.” In this single, declarative statement, the research problem is represented in a clear purpose statement that indicates the methodology (qualitative), the design (descriptive phenomenology), the sample (online doctoral candidates), and the location (The Southwest U.S.). In this case, the sampling approach may be purposive sampling

When each aspect of alignment is in place, it leads to a more effective execution of the study. The research problem, according to Creswell (2018), is the result of the issue or problem needing to be studied. The purpose statement flows from the research problem and provides the intent for the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research questions narrow the focus of the study guiding the specific line of inquiry in a manner consistent with the research problem, the purpose, and the theoretical/conceptual framework (Braun & Clarke, 2019). A lack of congruence in these elements can lead the researcher to incoherent results like a car with wings.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

It is important to clarify and contrast theoretical frameworks and the conceptual frameworks. Some universities prescribe the use of a theoretical framework for Ph.D. studies and the conceptual framework for applied degrees. Consequently, it is important that scholars understand what construct the scholar is using when using these terms. For example, one example of a conceptual framework definition is oriented around argumentation which may include a theory, construct, or model (Ravitch and Riggan, 2017) and according to Kerlinger and Lee (2018), “that a theoretical framework is only a little sub-set of the conceptual framework” (p. 47).

Both Kerlinger and Lee (2018) and Ravitch and Riggan (2017) provide examples of thought regarding theoretical and conceptual framework definitions. According to Kerlinger and Lee as cited in Kivunga (2018) a theoretical framework is “…a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena” (p. 44); and a conceptual framework is “…is the total, logical orientation and associations of anything and everything that forms the underlying thinking, structures, plans and practices and implementation of your entire research project” (p. 46). Meanwhile, Ravitch and Riggan (2017) suggested a conceptual framework is “is an argument about why the topic one wishes to study matters, and why the means proposed to study it are appropriate and rigorous” (p. 5).

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness represents four concepts that serve to reassure the reader and the research community that results from a qualitative study may be trusted. Specifically, these concepts include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 as cited in Korstjens & Moser, 2018). See Table 1 for the definitions of each element according to Lincoln and Guba (as cited in Korstjens & Moser, 2018, p. 121).

Table 1

Trustworthiness Definitions

Credibility

The confidence that can be placed in the truth of the research findings. Credibility establishes whether the research findings represent plausible information drawn from the participants’ original data and is a correct interpretation of the participants’ original views.

Transferability

The degree to which the results of qualitative research can be transferred to other contexts or settings with other respondents. The researcher facilitates the transferability judgment by a potential user through thick description.

Dependability

The stability of findings over time. Dependability involves participants’ evaluation of the findings, interpretation and recommendations of the study such that all are supported by the data as received from participants of the study.

Confirmability

The degree to which the findings of the research study could be confirmed by other researchers. Confirmability is concerned with establishing that data and interpretations of the findings are not figments of the inquirer’s imagination, but clearly derived from the data.

Note: taken from Lincoln and Guba (as cited in Korstjens & Moser, 2018, p. 21).

There are strategies that go with each aspect of trustworthiness. Credibility is established with prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, and member checking. Transferability is a byproduct of thick descriptions that include contextual and observation data. Dependability and confirmability require an extensive and transparent description of each research step taken including records that document the process allowing others to evaluate the findings, interpretation, and recommendations while substantiating that findings came from the data.

It is important to note that not every aspect of trustworthiness and each accompanying strategy applies to all qualitative research. Some strategies may not be appropriate for certain types of research. Consider a descriptive phenomenological study, which would not use triangulation. Also consider a study with vulnerable members of society where member checking may not be appropriate. Consequently, it is important to select strategies that will best suit the research study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 as cited in Korstjens & Moser, 2018, p. 21).

Major Qualitative Research Designs

There are at least five qualitative research designs: case study, phenomenology, action research, grounded theory, and narrative inquiry. As with qualitative research, there are varying schools of thought regarding these designs. In two examples, there are different seminal thinkers with ideas regarding case studies that include Yin, Stake and Merriam. Yin’s epistemological paradigm tends to be positivistic while Stake’s paradigm could be considered as constructivism and existentialism. Meanwhile Merriam’s model’s paradigm is constructivism focused on education case studies (Yazan, 2015). This is further complicated by the presence of different types of case studies such as explanatory, exploratory, and phenomenological case studies. Which case study approach to use depends on the type of research questions posed, the extent of control an investigator has over the behavioral events, and the degree of focus on current or historical events (Yin, 2018). Exploratory case studies historically have been used in early research and often lead to larger studies. Explanatory case studies provide explanation for a phenomenon that occurred (Yin, 2018). A phenomenological case study serves to make sense of intricate human experiences and the corresponding phenomena (Merriam, 2015).

In another example, phenomenology has thinkers like Heidegger, Husserl, Moustakas, Merleu-Ponty, Sartre, and Giorgi with different ideas (Sloane & Bowe, 2014). These thinkers contributed to the development of different types of phenomenological designs that include hermeneutic, interpretive, and descriptive phenomenology. Hermeneutic and interpretive phenomenology is phenomenology focused on the interpretation of text or language (Sloane & Bowe). Meanwhile, descriptive phenomenology attempts to take a global view of the essences of existence and interpreting a person’s meaning making—how they attribute meaning to a phenomenon (Sloane & Bowie, 2014, p. 6). A colleague and friend, Rodger Broome, who studied under Amadeo Giorgi, will passionately argue that only descriptive phenomenology meets the philosophical test for phenomenology (R. Broome, personal communication, November 2018). Accordingly, there is no consensus on a single approach to case studies or phenomenology.

However, despite the potential for confusion with qualitative research designs the following explains each:

Case Study

A qualitative case study is a bounded exploration into a phenomenon in a real-life context. The study is bounded by an individual, a group, an event, or an organization (Yin, 2014). There are single case studies and multi case studies. A particularly important point noted by Yin (2013) is that case studies rely on multiple sources of data helping to triangulate findings.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is both a philosophy and research design. It takes human experience distills it into the essence of how the participant made meaning or experienced the phenomenon. “The focus is on understanding the meaning of experience by searching for themes, engaging with the data interpretively, with less emphasis on the essences that are important to descriptive phenomenology” (Sloane & Bowie, 2014, p. 9). The design has its roots in German philosophy, and it allows researchers to explore the complexity of the human experience and how they make meaning of that experience (Sloan & Bowie, 2014).

Action Research

According to Sagor and Williams (2016), action research is a discipline of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action for the purpose of improving future actions. Moreover, it is a reflective process where the researcher is empowered to make changes while conducting the research. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the person doing the research to improve or refine a process (Sagor, 2000, p.3). Action research may be conducted by one practitioner or a group of practitioners (Sagor & Williams, 2016).

Grounded Theory

Ian Dey (1999) expressed that there are so many different types of grounded theory (GT) that there may be as many types of GT as there are grounded theorists. Grounded theory approaches include Classical Grounded Theory, Constructivist, Post Modern, and Feminist. However, Glaser and Strauss (2009) suggested that grounded theory was the process of discovering theory from data. Classical Grounded Theory is an inductive process that collects data, analyzes the data, develops substantive theories, and reviews the literature to explain the findings (Mediani, 2017). The researcher is distant and detached in Classical Grounded Theory, but in Interpretive Grounded Theory the researcher engages and actively interprets the data. The researcher in Constructivist Grounded Theory constructs a theory from the data instead of discovering it (Sebastian, 2019). Post Modern Grounded Theory uses situational analysis, which accounts for individual and non-human discursive, the social world, and the researcher’s paradigms (Ratnapalan, 2019). The feminist perspective applied to grounded theory is Feminist Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019). In each case the objective is to develop new theories from the data.

Narrative Inquiry

Narrative inquiry is a design that explores “knowing” through stories and narratives. It is a process of exploring human experiences in the context within which they occurred through the stories of the participants. Narrative researchers characterize these experiences through narratives built by the researcher (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

Qualitative Methods for Data Collection and Data Analysis

There are many books dedicated to qualitative data collection and data analysis. Some, in fact, apply entire books to dimensions of data collection and analysis. For example, there are books dedicated to data analysis, interviewing skills, and constructing questionnaires. There are many approaches and views to collecting and analyzing data that correspond with the specific qualitative design. Consequently, the following is an overview of general qualitative collection and analysis.

Qualitative Data Collection

There are two general qualitative data collection approaches: (1.) interactive, and (2.) textual (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Interactive data collection includes interviews and focus groups (Braun & Clarke). Textual data collection includes qualitative surveys, story completion, researcher-directed diaries, and pre-existing textual data (Braun & Clarke).

Braun and Clarke (2019) defined interviewing as a “professional conversation with the goal of getting participants to talk about their experiences and perspectives, and to capture their language and concepts, in relation to a topic” (p. 77). Moreover, there are different types of interviewing approaches based on the specific qualitative design, but structured, unstructured, and semi-structured interviews are three general approaches. Structured interviews are presented by the researcher and may be found in quantitative research (Braun & Clarke). Unstructured interviews may be guided by themes or topics, but unstructured interviews are driven by the participants (Braun & Clarke). Semi-structured interviews start with an interview guide but allow the researcher to follow up with probing and open-ended questions (Braun & clarke).

Focus groups acquire data from multiple participants in the same setting using both structured and unstructured guided conversations. The moderator, usually the researcher, prompts discussion among the participants in a more naturalistic manner than interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The discussions serve as the data, which is qualitatively analyzed.

Textual data sources include qualitative surveys or questionnaires, story completion, researcher directed diaries, and preexisting textual data (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Qualitative surveys, which are self-administered, acquire data via hard copy, email, or online (Braun & Clarke).

Story completion tasks are very different from previous mentioned data collection approaches. Story completion asks participants to respond to a queue to complete a story (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Anecdotally, this researcher prepared a team who traveled to Rwanda to build hospitals, provide relief, and gather qualitative data from many young boys who survived large-scale genocide. The research team used story telling as an approach to collecting sensitive data from a culture that does not openly share. For example, a researcher may ask a Rwandan boy, “Tell me a story what it would be like for a boy to have grown up and lived here in your village.” Because the stories were not about themselves, the boys revealed deep and compelling stories that helped the researchers understand the lived experiences of these boys.

Researcher-Directed diaries are tools to collect the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of participants over a period of time from participants (Braun & Clarke, 2019). These diaries provide insight into the daily lives of the participants in their natural setting (Braun & Clarke). While the diaries take commitment and effort, they can also provide unique insights into participant lives (Braun & Clarke).

Collecting pre-existing textual data is accessing information that is generally publicly available (Braun & Clarke, 2019). These sources may include online material, handbooks, speeches, blogs, information flyers, and more (Braun & Clarke). While this data may be easy to access, like all research regarding human participants, it must be collected with ethics in mind (Braun & Clarke).

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis takes on different forms depending on the specific qualitative design. Popular approaches include thematic analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), and Grounded Theory (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Generally, qualitative analysis can be understood in the following six steps (Braun & Clarke, 2019):

1. Reading and familiarization with the data.

2. Coding across the complete data set.

3. Searching for themes.

4. Reviewing themes and developing a thematic map.

5. Defining and naming the themes.

6. Writing the final analysis (pp. 202-203).

There are nuances that differentiate thematic, IPA and Grounded Theory analysis. In addition, there are different schools of thought regarding analysis. Saldana (2016), for example, introduced cycles of coding and different types of coding. Saldana (2016) provided several different types of coding in the first cycle and five approaches in the second cycle of coding.

In addition to analyzing qualitative data, there is CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Analysis Software) that makes the process easier (Saldana, 2016). While there are different software platforms, each help organize unstructured, non-numerical data. Each analysis tool helps the researcher organize, sort, categorize, and classify the data from interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. The software does not do the analysis; the researcher does the analysis.

Conclusion

The scholar embraces the diverse and multifaceted topic of qualitative research. An overview of qualitative research includes essential features, a contrast to quantitative research, the importance of alignment, trustworthiness, major qualitative designs, data collection, and data analysis. Qualitative research is a tool to explore the human experience more deeply. Like the diverse family of humans that qualitative research seeks to understand, the perspectives of qualitative research is similarly diverse.

References

Braun V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research. Sage.

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. Sage.

Clandinin, J.D. & Connelly, M.F. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Fifth edition. Sage.

Denzin N.K. & Lincoln Y.S. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. Emerald Publishing.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (2009). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Transaction Publishers.

Guest, G., Namey, E., & Mitchell, M. (2013). Collecting qualitative data. Sage.

Jeřábek, H. (2001). Paul Lazarsfeld—The founder of modern empirical sociology: A research biography. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(3), 229-244.

Kivunga, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. International Journal of Higher Education. 7(6), 44-53.

Korstjens, I. & Moser, A. (2018). Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K.M., Guest, G. & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International. Family Health International.

Mediani, H. S. (2017). An introduction to classical grounded theory. SOI Nur Health Care 3(3), 1-5.

Merriam, S.B. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

Ratnapalan, S. (2019). Qualitative approaches: Variations of grounded theory methodology. Canadian Family Physician, 65(9), 667-668.

Ravitch, S. & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding School Improvement with Action Research. ASCD.

Sagor, R. & Williams, C. (2016). The action research guidebook. Corwin.

Saldana, J. (2016), The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Sebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the types of grounded theory: Classical, Interpretive, and constructivist. Journal for Social Thought, 3(1), 1-9.

Sloan, A. & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: the philosophy, the methodologies and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers' experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), pp.1291-1303

Willig, C., & Rogers, W. S. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Sage.

Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152.

Yin, R.K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, The Guilford Press.

Yin, R.K. (2013). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2018). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage.