qualitative research method sociology

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Qualitative Methods in Sociological Research

Introduction, background and context.

Research Manuals
Data Analysis Software
Epistemological Debates
Culture and Meaning
Studying Lives Through Interviewing
Reflection and the Self
Ethical Issues
Comparisons and Revisits
Canonical Qualitative Studies

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Global Racial Formations
Transition to Parenthood in the Life Course
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Qualitative Methods in Sociological Research by Jeff Sallaz LAST REVIEWED: 27 July 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 27 July 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0043

Qualitative research methods have a long and distinguished history within sociology. They trace their roots back to Max Weber’s call for an interpretive understanding of action. Today, qualitative sociology encompasses a variety of specific procedures for collecting data, ranging from life history interviews to direct observation of social interaction to embedded participant observation. In all of these cases, the social scientist directly interacts with those whom he or she is studying. The social scientist attempts to see the world from their perspective and to interpret their practices in a meaningful way. In fact, scholars such as Howard Becker and Clifford Geertz have argued that the ultimate test of the validity of a qualitative research study is whether it produces an account of social action that would make sense to the actors themselves. As this would imply, the foundational logic underlying qualitative studies differs from that of variable-oriented quantitative research. The latter measures particular properties of social phenomena and then uses statistical models to determine patterns of association among these properties, or variables. Because these models require a larger number of cases to establish statistically significant associations, quantitative researchers necessarily must sacrifice depth for breadth. Qualitative researchers, in contrast, are comfortable working with a small number of cases, or even a single case. They have at their disposal a variety of assumptions, theories, and methods to produce rich accounts of social life. In addition, qualitative research can offer unique insight into the relationship between microsocial and macrosocial worlds and even global forces.

The following texts offer the interested reader a general introduction to basic principles and debates associated with qualitative research methods. Ross 1992 and Abbott 1999 situate these methods in historical context. During the first half of the 20th century, ethnographic field research was the gold standard for sociology—especially at the famed Chicago school. The same was true in much of Europe, as Masson 2008 describes in the case of France. Katz 1997 , Burawoy 1998 , and Steinmetz 2005 , in turn, defend ethnography against recent critiques that it does not represent a legitimate mode of inquiry according to the standards of positivist science. That such debates are intertwined with larger moral concerns is demonstrated by Smith 2005 and Van Manen 1990 , both of which argue that qualitative methods are uniquely suited to study the lives of oppressed and subaltern groups.

Abbott, Andrew. 1999. Department and discipline: Chicago sociology at one hundred . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Robert Park, a sociologist at the University of Chicago in the early 20th century, ordered his students to “Go get the seat of your pants dirty.” Abbott offers a balanced insider account of the famed Chicago School of ethnographic field research.

Burawoy, Michael. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16.1: 5–33.

Argues that qualitative methods should not be held to the standards of “positive science.” Rather, they represent an equally valid mode of analysis grounded in a “reflexive science.”

Katz, Jack. 1997. Ethnography’s warrants. Sociological Methods and Research 25.4: 391–423.

DOI: 10.1177/0049124197025004002

Addresses the question how qualitative researchers can justify, or warrant, their case studies in relation to potentially hostile audiences who adhere to a mainstream quantitative view.

Masson, Philippe. 2008. Faire de la sociologie: Les grandes enquêtes françaises depuis 1945 . Grands repères. Guides. Paris: La Découverte.

Currently available only in French, this book covers the history of qualitative field methods in French sociology, especially the diffusion of ideas from the United States.

Ross, Dorothy. 1992. The origins of American social science . Ideas in Context. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

A comprehensive study of the history of sociology in America, this book argues that the legitimacy of qualitative research has been tied to the preeminence of various universities, departments, and faculties.

Smith, Dorothy. 2005. Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people . Gender Lens series. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Argues persuasively that ethnographers have a responsibility to impart in their research subjects an understanding of the powerful external forces shaping their everyday life worlds. Very much in the spirit of what C. Wright Mills referred to as the sociological imagination: the capacity to understand personal issues in the context of larger public problems.

Steinmetz, George, ed. 2005. The politics of method in the human sciences: Positivism and its epistemological others . Politics, History and Culture. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.

Collection of essays examining how positivism (i.e., an epistemology valorizing empirical observations and the application of the scientific method) came to dominate many human sciences, including sociology. Qualitative researchers often have to deal with the critique that their methods do not meet the standards of positivism.

Van Manen, Max. 1990. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy . SUNY Series in Philosophy of Education. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

A short but powerful book offering an accessible introduction to hermeneutic and phenomenological methods. It focuses on the applied aspects of qualitative methods for simultaneously teaching and learning from our subjects.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Sociology »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Actor-Network Theory
Adolescence
African Americans
African Societies
Agent-Based Modeling
Analysis, Spatial
Analysis, World-Systems
Anomie and Strain Theory
Arab Spring, Mobilization, and Contentious Politics in the...
Asian Americans
Assimilation
Authority and Work
Bell, Daniel
Biosociology
Bourdieu, Pierre
Catholicism
Causal Inference
Chicago School of Sociology
Chinese Cultural Revolution
Chinese Society
Citizenship
Civil Rights
Civil Society
Cognitive Sociology
Cohort Analysis
Collective Efficacy
Collective Memory
Comte, Auguste
Conflict Theory
Conservatism
Consumer Credit and Debt
Consumer Culture
Consumption
Contemporary Family Issues
Contingent Work
Conversation Analysis
Corrections
Cosmopolitanism
Crime, Cities and
Cultural Capital
Cultural Classification and Codes
Cultural Economy
Cultural Omnivorousness
Cultural Production and Circulation
Culture and Networks
Culture, Sociology of
Development
Discrimination
Doing Gender
Du Bois, W.E.B.
Durkheim, Émile
Economic Globalization
Economic Institutions and Institutional Change
Economic Sociology
Education and Health
Education Policy in the United States
Educational Policy and Race
Empires and Colonialism
Entrepreneurship
Environmental Sociology
Epistemology
Ethnic Enclaves
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
Exchange Theory
Families, Postmodern
Family Policies
Feminist Theory
Field, Bourdieu's Concept of
Forced Migration
Foucault, Michel
Frankfurt School
Gender and Bodies
Gender and Crime
Gender and Education
Gender and Health
Gender and Incarceration
Gender and Professions
Gender and Social Movements
Gender and Work
Gender Pay Gap
Gender, Sexuality, and Migration
Gender Stratification
Gender, Welfare Policy and
Gendered Sexuality
Gentrification
Gerontology
Global Inequalities
Globalization and Labor
Goffman, Erving
Historic Preservation
Human Trafficking
Immigration
Indian Society, Contemporary
Institutions
Intellectuals
Intersectionalities
Interview Methodology
Job Quality
Knowledge, Critical Sociology of
Labor Markets
Latino/Latina Studies
Law and Society
Law, Sociology of
LGBT Parenting and Family Formation
LGBT Social Movements
Life Course
Lipset, S.M.
Markets, Conventions and Categories in
Marriage and Divorce
Marxist Sociology
Masculinity
Mass Incarceration in the United States and its Collateral...
Material Culture
Mathematical Sociology
Medical Sociology
Mental Illness
Methodological Individualism
Middle Classes
Military Sociology
Money and Credit
Multiculturalism
Multilevel Models
Multiracial, Mixed-Race, and Biracial Identities
Nationalism
Non-normative Sexuality Studies
Occupations and Professions
Organizations
Panel Studies
Parsons, Talcott
Political Culture
Political Economy
Political Sociology
Popular Culture
Proletariat (Working Class)
Protestantism
Public Opinion
Public Space
Race and Sexuality
Race and Violence
Race and Youth
Race in Global Perspective
Race, Organizations, and Movements
Rational Choice
Relationships
Religion and the Public Sphere
Residential Segregation
Revolutions
Role Theory
Rural Sociology
Scientific Networks
Secularization
Sequence Analysis
Sex versus Gender
Sexual Identity
Sexualities
Sexuality Across the Life Course
Simmel, Georg
Single Parents in Context
Small Cities
Social Capital
Social Change
Social Closure
Social Construction of Crime
Social Control
Social Darwinism
Social Disorganization Theory
Social Epidemiology
Social History
Social Indicators
Social Mobility
Social Movements
Social Network Analysis
Social Networks
Social Policy
Social Problems
Social Psychology
Social Stratification
Social Theory
Socialization, Sociological Perspectives on
Sociolinguistics
Sociological Approaches to Character
Sociological Research on the Chinese Society
Sociological Research, Qualitative Methods in
Sociological Research, Quantitative Methods in
Sociology, History of
Sociology of Manners
Sociology of Music
Sociology of War, The
Suburbanism
Survey Methods
Symbolic Boundaries
Symbolic Interactionism
The Division of Labor after Durkheim
Tilly, Charles
Time Use and Childcare
Tourism, Sociology of
Transnational Adoption
Unions and Inequality
Urban Ethnography
Urban Growth Machine
Urban Inequality in the United States
Veblen, Thorstein
Visual Arts, Music, and Aesthetic Experience
Wallerstein, Immanuel
Welfare, Race, and the American Imagination
Welfare States
Women’s Employment and Economic Inequality Between Househo...
Work and Employment, Sociology of
Work/Life Balance
Workplace Flexibility
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[185.126.86.119]
185.126.86.119

Extract insights from Customer & Employee Interviews. At Scale.

Step-by-step guide: qualitative research methods in sociology.

Home » Step-by-Step Guide: Qualitative Research Methods in Sociology

Qualitative Sociology Methods provide valuable insights into human behavior and social phenomena. These methods focus on understanding the complexities of social interactions, cultural norms, and individual experiences. By emphasizing subjective meanings, researchers can explore social issues in-depth, offering rich, contextual data that quantitative methods often overlook.

In this guide, we will outline step-by-step approaches to employing these methods effectively. You'll learn about various techniques, such as interviews, focus groups, and participant observation. Each technique serves as a lens through which sociologists can capture the nuanced realities of people's lives, contributing to a deeper understanding of society as a whole.

Understanding Qualitative Sociology Methods

Qualitative Sociology Methods provide researchers with the tools to explore social phenomena in depth. These methods prioritize understanding social dynamics through rich, descriptive data rather than numerical analysis. Researchers often engage with participants through interviews, focus groups, and observations to gather insights that reveal the complexities of human behavior and social interactions.

One major aspect of these methods involves thematic analysis, where researchers identify and interpret patterns within the data. This allows for a nuanced understanding of people's experiences. Additionally, the iterative nature of qualitative research emphasizes reflexivity, where researchers reflect on their biases and preconceptions. Overall, Qualitative Sociology Methods empower researchers to uncover deeper meanings, providing a framework for rich sociological inquiry and enhancing our understanding of societal issues.

Key Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research in sociology has several distinct characteristics that highlight its unique value in understanding human behavior and social phenomena. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of context. Researchers strive to grasp the complexities of social interactions, environments, and cultural norms. This focus helps provide deeper insights into the motives and experiences of individuals. Secondly, qualitative sociology methods prioritize subjective experiences, enabling researchers to capture nuanced perspectives that quantitative methods often overlook.

Additionally, qualitative research often employs dynamic tools such as interviews, focus groups, and participant observations. These methods foster rich dialogues, allowing participants to express themselves freely. Finally, the analysis of qualitative data is interpretive, seeking patterns, themes, and meanings rather than numerical values. Overall, the key characteristics of qualitative research underline its strength in producing meaningful and contextually rich insights into societal behavior.

The Importance of Qualitative Methods in Sociology

Qualitative sociology methods play a crucial role in understanding human behavior and societal dynamics. These methods allow researchers to explore complex phenomena through direct interactions and observations, offering deeper insights into individual experiences. Qualitative research focuses on understanding the meaning behind actions, beliefs, and social contexts, which quantitative methods may overlook.

Through methods such as interviews, focus groups, and participant observations, qualitative sociology methods reveal patterns and themes that illuminate the intricacies of social life. This approach enables sociologists to grasp the emotional and social nuances that influence people's lives, leading to richer interpretations of societal issues. By prioritizing the subjective experiences of individuals, researchers can develop nuanced narratives that reflect the complexity of society, contributing to both academic knowledge and real-world applications.

Conducting Qualitative Research in Sociology

Conducting qualitative research in sociology requires a nuanced understanding of social phenomena. Researchers often engage in direct conversations with participants, allowing them to gather rich, detailed information. This method enables the exploration of behaviors, motivations, and values, contributing significantly to qualitative sociology methods.

There are several key components to consider when embarking on qualitative research. First, identifying a robust research question is essential, as it will guide the entire study. Second, selecting appropriate methods, such as interviews, focus groups, or observations, is crucial for obtaining relevant data. Finally, effective data analysis involves interpreting participants' responses and recognizing patterns and themes. Each of these steps plays a pivotal role in shaping a comprehensive understanding of the social world, ensuring that the research findings are both credible and relevant.

Planning Your Qualitative Study

When planning your qualitative study, clarity about your research objectives is essential. Define the primary questions that guide your inquiry and identify the population you wish to study. Clearly outlining these elements allows for a focused approach, leading to richer and more meaningful data collection.

Next, choose the appropriate qualitative sociology methods that align with your objectives. Methods such as interviews, focus groups, or ethnographic studies should be considered based on the depth and context required. It’s also vital to outline your sampling strategy. Determine how you will recruit participants and ensure that your sample is representative of the larger population you wish to study. A well-structured plan not only improves data quality but also enhances the overall credibility of your conclusions.

Selecting Appropriate Qualitative Methods

Selecting appropriate qualitative methods is crucial for effective qualitative research in sociology. The right methods can help you gather rich, insightful data that reflects participants' experiences and perspectives. Begin by considering your research objectives. Are you aiming to understand lived experiences, explore social phenomena, or generate new theories? Identifying your goals will guide your choice of qualitative methods.

Next, consider the context of your study. Methods such as interviews, focus groups, and ethnography each serve different purposes and contexts. Interviews allow for in-depth personal insights, while focus groups can reveal collective perspectives and group dynamics. Ethnographic studies immerse you in participants’ environments, enabling a comprehensive understanding of their behaviors and interactions. Finally, think about your resources, including time and expertise, which will further inform your method selection. Overall, aligning your qualitative methods with your research goals and context will enhance the depth and quality of your findings.

Conclusion: Mastering Qualitative Sociology Methods

In conclusion, mastering qualitative sociology methods is essential for a deeper understanding of social phenomena. Researchers can gain richer insights by employing diverse techniques, such as interviews and focus groups, to gather participants' lived experiences. This allows for a nuanced analysis that quantitative methods may overlook, enhancing the overall quality of sociological research.

Moreover, developing expertise in these qualitative methods encourages a more empathetic research approach. The stories and perspectives from participants not only inform theoretical frameworks but also contribute to practical applications. Embracing qualitative sociology methods ultimately paves the way for meaningful engagement within communities and fosters informed decision-making based on authentic human experiences.

Turn interviews into actionable insights

On this Page

Coding for qualitative research: AI-powered tools

You may also like, best way to analyse qualitative data with ai.

Process of data analysis in qualitative research explained

Top coding for research methods in qualitative analysis.

Unlock Insights from Interviews 10x faster

Request demo
Get started for free

2.2 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

Recall the 6 Steps of the Scientific Method
Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis.
Explain the appropriateness of specific research approaches for specific topics.

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary source data collection such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The 2020 U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Since 1790, United States has conducted a survey consisting of six questions to received demographical data pertaining to residents. The questions pertain to the demographics of the residents who live in the United States. Currently, the Census is received by residents in the United Stated and five territories and consists of 12 questions.

Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. The Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance cannot be generalized, because they are administered to an unrepresentative population, a specific show’s audience. You might receive polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide you incentives for completing the survey.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample , a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire. Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions . The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data —data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or morals. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Some topics that investigate internal thought processes are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of in-depth material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as “How does society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. The researcher will also benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Surveys often collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. For example, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentence and other explanatory information.

The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face. When researchers collect data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting, they are conducting field research, which is our next topic.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people think and behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology do not identify a cause and effect but a correlation .

Sociology in the Real World

Beyoncé and lady gaga as sociological subjects.

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. In their studies, researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and ﬁngers bent and curled to resemble monster claws.”

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience homelessness for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised the purpose of their study.

This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd & Lynd, 1929).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study . To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a social group.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (1990), institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male- dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography (Fensternmaker n.d.).

Sociological Research

The making of middletown: a study in modern u.s. culture.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000) as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minorities or outsiders—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds objectively described what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. As a result, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six chapters: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg. 2000).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times. Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that while offering depth on a topic, it does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can contribute tremendous insight. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” growth and nurturing. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be obtained by any other method.

Experiments

You have probably tested some of your own personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that more data can be recorded in a limited amount of time. In a natural or field- based experiment, the time it takes to gather the data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might provide tutoring to the experimental group of students but not to the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record of a student, for example.

And if a researcher told the students they would be observed as part of a study on measuring the effectiveness of tutoring, the students might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —which occurs when people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research studies because sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

A real-life example will help illustrate the process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory, she conducted research. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: Black, White, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who had had perfect driving records for longer than a year.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support for the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The research was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm, 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or social media.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization (WHO), publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of a recession. A racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or WHO statistics is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, when Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research in the 1920s, attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal insights about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-2-research-methods

© Aug 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Principles of Sociological Inquiry – Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

(28 reviews)

Amy Blackstone, University of Maine

ISBN 13: 9781453328897

Publisher: Saylor Foundation

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Sosanya Jones, Associate Professor, Howard University on 1/31/22

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The book does a fairly good job of covering a lot of topics in the research design process for both qualitative and quantitative research. I think it could have been more expansive in the coverage and discussion about the role of paradigm, reflexivity, and positionality for qualitative research. I also think that its division between qualitative and quantitative research was a bit antiquated with little nuance and complexity for those who want to conduct mixed methods research.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I think the coverage of paradigms was limited and there was a lack of complexity when it discussed some topics such as approaches. But overall, most of it was fairly accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

I think that it needs to be updated to be more relevant, but overall there are still concepts of importance that are well covered in this text.

Clarity rating: 4

It's fairly simple and easy to read for the most part.

Consistency rating: 4

Some topics are covered more in-depth than others.

Modularity rating: 3

It's a bit dense and strangely formatted. In terms of presentation, I don't think it's very appealing for students, but instructors may enjoy the exercises offered.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

I think the order and organization could have been more cohesive.

Interface rating: 5

Good interface.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Good grammar.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I think it could have featured more diverse examples.

Overall, this is a good textbook for beginning researchers, but it may need some supplemental articles for areas that are not covered.

Reviewed by Christina Pratt, Professor, Pace University on 7/25/21

Good basic coverage of interpretive and qualitative methods; explanatory and quantitative methods; mixed methods; scant content on innovative approacheds to online surveys, big data; understanding behavior through smartphones; technology and... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Content Accuracy rating: 3

Methods content is accurate.

The heteronormativity of examples render the text unfriendly.

The text is written in clear accessible language. The examples neglect attention to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Consistency rating: 3

The text is consistently biased toward examples representing dominant cultural heteronormativity.

Modularity rating: 4

The modules proceed in a logical progression. Good content on research ethics.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Fine level of organization and navigation.

Interface rating: 3

The pdf is easily navigated; the hyperlinks to New Yorker cartoons do not visualize the cartoon captioned in the text. All research questions, case examples, illustrations of concepts carry a dominant cultural heteronormative bias.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

No errors detected.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

Heteronormativity in case examples, illustrations, questions, inquiry dominate the text. As such, it is outdated as relevant to structural sources of intersectionality in investigator positionality.

Reviewed by Florencia Gabriele, Adjunct Professor, Massachusetts Bay Community College on 6/29/21

The book would benefit from an index and glossary. The material is easy to find despite lacking an index and the book follows a logical order and the material becomes more complex as the book progress. read more

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I found no errors in the book

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The book can be used in any humanities/social science class, not only in sociology

Clarity rating: 5

The book is an excellent source for any principles of research class for high school, community college, or college classes. the book si clear to understand and follow

Consistency rating: 5

The book is consistent and provides a complete overview of what it takes to do research and write a research project/paper for students.

Modularity rating: 5

the book is divided into chapters that are easy to follow and understand and could be divided into smaller sections if needed.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The book is organized in a logical manner.

I had not issues using the interface and neither did my students.

I found no grammatical errors

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The book is inclusive and provides excellent examples

I used the textbook to introduce college methods to a pre-college class of outstanding students who wanted to write a good sample paper to be used in their application essays for college. The book was clear, well organized, and provided great examples. also, it did not overwhelm my students. while it might not be appropriate for a college-upper level class, it is a great introduction on how to do research, how to ask a proper question, how to organize the work and the data, what type of study to do, and how to write a paper.

Reviewed by Kay Flewelling, Adjunct Faculty, University of San Diego on 5/3/21

This is an easy-to-read description and introduction to principles of sociological inquiry. Blackstone is adept at explaining critical social science research terminology as she places these in context with other disciplines. The introduction to concepts is comprehensive, though not overwhelming with details. There is no glossary provided, though the Table of Contents provides some help with navigating through the different chapters.

I found the overall tone to be well managed, and found no errors in her descriptions of sociological concepts and research terminology.

The content was relevant, and timely. As the focus is on research principles, these topics were well-placed within context of seminal theories. If topics become outdated, these could be easily updated.

The strength of this text is the clarity of the prose. The author speaks directly to the reader, and makes research and methodology seem accessible and relevant. Terms are carefully defined and placed in easy-to-access contexts.

The text has a direct tone throughout. Each aspect of the research process is described in a similar, conversational tone.

This text is somewhat modular, but there are numerous points of self-reference that might make it less able to be easily assigned as distinct chapters.

The structure and flow was strong, especially in the early chapters. I found some of the later chapters to be a bit tacked on. For example, there is a chapter on how to consume research that I personally would assign with the chapter on reading literature.

I had no issues with navigation.

The book is clearly written. There were no grammatical errors that I noticed.

The text felt clear and culturally sensitive. If anything, it could have been more explicit to address cultural issues.

Reviewed by Yang Cheng, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University on 4/2/21

I reviewed the topics such as quantitative methods and qualitative methods, Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory, research ethics... The author did contain different topics in this book. If the author could provide more examples of quantitative... read more

Yes, it did accurately described each type of method and its applications in the real world.

It is relevant to the book introduction and title.

It accurately described qualitative and quantitative methods in sociology and provide concrete examples as well. The book could elaborate more on each type of research method. For example, when they introduce the survey method, more content could be illustrated such as how to design a research question for what type of survey method...

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology such as quantitative methods, measurement, and research design, etc.

The text is easily divisible into smaller reading sections.

The book follows a logical way to present different topics: It introduces why we need research methods, research methods, and then illustrates each type of method, and finally discusses the application in real practice.

The text is free of significant interface issues and I did not observe one.

The text contains no grammatical errors.

Yes, the book is inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

Reviewed by Antwan Jones, Associate Professor, The George Washington University on 12/16/20

The textbook covers a large amount of material that introduces the reader to research methods. One of the weak points of the book is a lack of discussion on how to conduct a literature review. This information can obviously be supplemented, but it... read more

The material is accurate with no presence of bias – which is great because you can normally tell whether the author of a methods textbook has a partiality for quantitative or qualitative methods. In this book, the author presents the material for all types of methods objectively.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Some of the examples provided are dated, but that is simply an artifact of when the book was written. Professors who decide to use this text should supplement examples included in the book with more contemporary examples that could be used to reinforce the material.

The language is very clear and user-friendly for an undergraduate student with limited exposure to research.

The book is well-structured with similar headings across all chapters.

If an instructor wanted to shuffle some of the content around, the structure of the book would allow for that to occur with ease.

This textbook is organized like other textbooks that I have used for Methods courses. One of the issues that I find with this “standard” organization is that that the reading and understanding research is one of the final chapters, when it really should be one of the first chapters of the book.

Interface rating: 4

I usually do not rely on external content from textbooks in my courses, but I decided to click on a random selection of external links within some of the chapters. Overwhelmingly, the links work and some of the content was highly relevant, but there were links that were broken as well. I mentioned in another section of my review that instructors should supplement this textbook with newer examples. By doing so, it would also remedy this potential textbook flaw.

Very few, minor grammatical errors are present in the book, but none are so egregious that it takes away from the quality (or the readability) of the work.

The examples and content are relevant to national (i.e., American) and international audiences, but more global examples would make the textbook even more culturally sensitive to a demographically changing world.

Research methods is a “bread-and-butter” course for the social sciences, so the context rarely changes. If you are looking for a quality textbook that gives students a solid foundation of the basic tenets of social research, this book will meet your needs.

Reviewed by Linda McCarthy, Professor, Greenfield Community College on 6/29/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

I have not reviewed or used other methods books, but this book includes what I would expect. I imagine most students would need more guidance on how to analyze data, whether it be quantitative or qualitative. I appreciate that Blackstone includes the reasoning or the whys and whens of each method, as most students I encounter all are drawn to surveys, even when their research question would not warrant a survey. I liked the inclusion of how to review existing sociological research. I wonder if that would be interesting as part of the opening of the book? At least, the media module? Great to end the book with where we see sociological research being used in the "real world". And, excellent idea- to include a list of "transferable skills"! Students will feel that reading this book is time well spent! I did not see a glossary or an index.

Each chapter provides examples from research and gives citations for all these cited. I did not detect bias.

Research studies referred to are relevant, though some are highlighted more than others, and I was curious about some of those choices. I believe it will not be difficult to update the examples. Some of the examples (such as videos to check out) are pretty dated. For example, a clip from The View from 2011 will seem like ancient history to these students. I wonder if there are ways to better incorporate examples from social media (e.g Tic Tok instead of email)? That may be challenging as it changes so quickly. I like that students are introduced to a variety of sociological resources throughout this book.

I like the tone of the writing; it's easy to follow and friendly. The "technical" terms are explained well and contextualized as to why they are important. Blackstone's tone is personable; I like that she refers to her own experiences in a variety of ways.

Each module has the same Learning Objectives, Key Takeaways, and Exercises. Some of the Exercises are not as strong as others. The author wraps up the book by referring back to the beginning Intro chapter.

I like the modules format. Works for the short attention we all have these days. I would assign a chapter or two from this book to my Intro course.

I liked the order of topics very much. Starting with an intro, then theory, and ethics, before moving into how to start a research project makes sense. I liked how the student is encouraged to "start where they are". Being led through the possibilities of qualitative vs. quantitative, including the different types of field research was helpful and interesting. The order of the chapters made sense to me.

Interface rating: 2

On the PDF version, some tables carried over between pages, as did some of the Key Takeaways sections. Some of the visuals were not visible. Also, I got some 404 messages (the "hilarious video" on page 5, for example), which was disappointing. Also, every time I opened a link, it brought me back to the first page again, and that was frustrating. In fact, it taught me not to open any more links. The New Yorker cartoon links just takes you to a whole lot of them, not the one listed. Why list the Endnotes BIG (2) if they aren't hyperlinked? I don't like the different fonts. I checked out the online version and it is much easier to look at. Can the hyperlinks be set into the text, rather than the whole addresses listed out?

A couple minor grammar issues here and there, including no space between sentences.

In the research ethics section, I would suggest addressing the idea that vulnerable populations have included GLBTQ populations and therefore, sexuality research has been hindered to a certain extent (See Janice Irvine's work). A good variety/diversity of studies is referenced, allowing everyone to "see" themselves" in the book. I love the variety of examples in the "starting where you are" section.

I enjoyed it! I would feel comfortable assigning this book to second year community college students.

Reviewed by Walter Carroll, Professor of Sociology, Bridgewater State University on 6/10/20

This book appears reasonably comprehensive although the absence of coverage on network analysis is a weakness. Some recent textbooks have begun to cover this important approach. I would also have liked to see more coverage on data archives. For example, although the texts refers to materials like Addhealth and the GSS, I did not see mention of the Inter-university Consortium on Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Although I emphasize both quantitative and qualitative aspects in teaching research methods there are topics covered that I would leave out, such as ethnomethodology. I would also liked to have seen information on carrying out Literature Reviews. I may have missed some of these things because of the lack of an index and a glossary. Other reviewers have pointed this out. For me this is a serious problem. As others have also pointed out, the 2012 publication date leads to some dated examples and no opportunity to include more recent examples. I used the pdf version for this review. I would like to see a deailed Table of Contents and an overall Chapter Outline at the beginning of each chapter.

The book seems to be accurate in discussing the material. The author presents the material accurately and in an unbiased way.

The contents were up-up-to date as of 2011-2012, but it needs revision to include more recent research examples and techniques. Although network analysis is not new, it is receiving renewed attention in methods texts. This book does not consider that approach. Although there are many basic underlying principles in research, there are also advances and many new examples of research that ought to be incorporated. Other reviewers have pointed out that instructors could add newer materials and resarch examples. This is true, but given the uneasiness with which undergraduate students approach research methods they often cling to the text as a life-saver and I'd prefer a more recent text.

The writing is accessible and clear. Occasionally there are grammatical errors and odd sentences, but overall Blackstone's writing is approachable.

Yes, the book is internally consistent in terminology and framework.

I differ somewhat from other reviewers on this. Yes, text is modular and sections and chapters can be moved around and reshuffled. However, I think that there is an order to thinking about research so a lot of modularity is not necessarily a big advantage to me. This is especially true in early sections fo the book when the author discusses general issues in methods, such as ethics, sampling, and research design. Actually, I prefer integrating discussions of some of those topics, such as ehtics, into coverage of each type of data gathering.

It is a well-organized text although a detailed table of comments, as I mentioned above, would make the organization more apparent to students early on in the class.

In the pdf version there are interface issues, but this may not be true of the online version.

There are a few, but not many.

The text is culturally senstivie and inclusive. A newer edition with more recent examples of studies in inequality, racial and ethnic issues, and gender would strengthen it.

This is a praiseworthy effort that arose from the author's own experiences and frustrations taking and -- presumably -- teaching research methods. It is accessible and has no major flaws, other than being a little old and lacking a few topics that I emphasize. I, and I think most faculty members, consider cost in adopting texts so it is appealing in that sense. However, there are other reasonably-priced methods texts. If it were updated to say 2017 or so, included more recent examples, and covered a few areas that I emphasize, such as network analysis, I would consider using it. As it stands however, although I like it, I would not use it.

Reviewed by Colleen Wynn, Assistant Professor, University of Indianapolis on 5/27/20

This text is quite comprehensive for an introductory methods course. It nicely covers both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. I appreciate the use of sociological examples both historical and contemporary. Of course, since this edition is from 2012, the current examples are becoming a little outdated in 2020, but still serve as quality examples for students. As other reviewers have pointed out, there is not an index or glossary, though in the online version one can hover over key terms for definitions.

The content appears to be accurate and free from bias. There are some links that are broken, so instructors would need to check these and perhaps provide the current link or a substitute, but as the reference information is provided, this seems possible to do. There are also some editing errors, but the content itself is accurate.

This text uses both more classic examples and ones current to the 2012 publication date. Instructors could easily layer on additional examples in lecture or supplemental reading. The core concepts of research methods do not change very often, and most instructors use a combination of classic and contemporary examples, as this text does. The discussion of experiments in Chapter 12 could use more sociological examples of audit-studies, etc. This would be something instructors would probably want to add and discuss since these studies are used quite frequently in sociological research and their omission is disappointing.

The book is written very clearly and would work well in an undergraduate class. Key terms are bolded and explained, and in the online version, you can hover over them for a brief definition. Each section begins with learning objectives and ends with key takeaways and exercises. This presentation allows students to understand what they should be getting from the section (learning objectives), review that information (key takeaways), and apply their new knowledge (exercises). Instructors can use these to guide their classes, student reading, activities, etc.

The book is very consistent, using the same format for each chapter and subsection. This allows students to reorient before each new topic by reviewing the learning objectives and summarize each section in the key takeaways. This consistency is key as students often perceive methods to be a dry, boring subject.

Individual chapters or even subsections could easily be pulled out and used for other courses. Additionally, it seems possible to reorder some of the chapters, if an instructor would prefer, or to skip one here or there if time or course design warranted. This modular ability is a real strength of the text.

The book is well-organized and follows the same convention of many methods texts. However, if instructors would like to reorganize, the modularity would allow for the reorganization of this content to fit their course. Personally, I would probably move Chapter 14 on reading research earlier in the semester (maybe after Chapter 2) as I like to have students read examples of research alongside the text, and having a foundation of how to read and understand these articles and reports would be useful. But, overall, I think the text is well organized.

The online interface is easy to use. However, the PDF version has tables breaking across pages, figures missing, and the text sometimes changes size and font, which is quite distracting. Additionally, in the PDF there is no table of contents or way to easily navigate within the document. For this reason, I would encourage students to use the online version but download the PDF as a backup.

There are several grammatical errors throughout, but these are relatively minor.

The text uses a variety of diverse examples. The author could include more global examples in future editions if they wanted to add a more global component.

I appreciate there is an open-access methods book for sociology and I look forward to using this book in my future courses. Methods books tend to be quite expensive and it is a class where having the book is crucial for success so I think this is a great option to ensure students have access!

Reviewed by Yvonne Braun, Professor, University of Oregon on 11/27/19

I generally really liked this methods book and can imagine using it in an undergraduate methods course. It covers the main sections that most of us would expect to see in a methods text. The text needs a table of contents with breakdowns by... read more

The book generally seems accurate. I think some of the discussion at times could have more nuance, but I understand and appreciate that the author has kept this methods book concise and focused which may have come at the cost of nuance in some areas.

This is a very relevant text with updated materials and I can imagine using it for a methods course. I really appreciate the focus on mixed methods which tries to move beyond the quantitative and qualitative divide that too often is the focus. It seems it would be relatively easy to update in the future due to the way it is organized.

The author writes very clearly and directly which I imagine would work well for undergraduate students at the introductory level. At times, I can imagine definitions being made more distinct could be useful for students.

The author keeps the book very consistent throughout, and successfully builds on examples and references made in multiple chapters.

The book has multiple levels of modularity. I particularly like that the chapters largely stand on their own so that I can imagine selecting chapters to be used in a different order in my class. Each chapter has multiple modules that seem to keep each section reasonably focused on a particular set of ideas and concepts. A table of contents would really help.

I generally like the organization of the book. It seems organized similarly to other methods books in the field. As noted above, I particularly like that the chapters largely stand on their own so that I can imagine selecting chapters to be used in a different order in my class.

I reviewed the PDF version. In general, I found it easy to navigate. My biggest complaint is the font and spacing issues that I find very distracting and even overwhelming at times. Some of the text, like chapter titles when referenced in text, are larger and in a different font and the spacing feels crowded.

There are a few grammatical errors that another round of edits would easily fix. A few sentences end strangely, and take a second read to understand.

The author does a nice job of aiming to be inclusive in the text with diverse examples.

I look forward to using this book in a future course.

Reviewed by Fatima Sattar, Assistant Professor of Sociology , Augustana College on 7/30/19

The text does a great job covering a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. I did not see an index or glossary. The text would benefit from adding both and/or a list of terms students should be familiar with at the end of each chapter. It is very helpful that key terms are in bold in the text. In a future edition, more recent sociological scholarship on experimental methods and comparative and historical methods would be helpful.

The text appears to be accurate and unbiased as the author discusses strengths and weaknesses of the methods. The only error I noticed was that there were a few links to sources that did not work. The full reference is given so this can be easily found.

There are many relevant and classic examples that undergraduate students will be able to relate to. The narrative/personal style makes the text very accessible.

The author's writing is very clear, making it easy for undergraduates to comprehend. For example, students struggle with abstract concepts, e.g. theory vs. paradigm. The examples given provide clarity for students. There could be some clarification in Chapter 2. In Figure 2.2 the three main sociological theories are mentioned but also listed as paradigms. An explanation of interchangeable terms/complexity could be discussed more. The examples are excellent for giving students a better understanding of theory. The discussion of methods and theory could be elaborated as well (e.g. more examples of macro-micro links, macro forces impinging on the micro-local, research not being about just one of these, micro, meso, or macro).

The book is very consistent. Each section begins with "Learning Objectives" and ends with "Key Takeaways" and "Exercises". Very easy to follow!

I think the sections can be read on their own and assigned when needed.

I would probably reorganize some of the sections in teaching the course, because, for example, I would teach qualitative methods before quantitative methods. Also, the chapter on "Reading and Understanding Social Research" could be linked with "Research Design" to offer students examples earlier in the term to help inspire a project or begin a literature review for a research methods proposal assignment.

Interface is clear.

I did not notice any significant grammar issues.

The text has diverse examples but could expand to include more global research examples.

I would reorganize chapter 12 and 15. Focus group research could fit with applied or evaluation research - so these chapters could be combined. I also think the title of Chapter 12 could be more concrete than just "other methods." Experiments could be discussed earlier in the ethics chapter to offer more balance with ethically questionable experiments with experimental research done for social good/advancing equality. Add more examples of experiment research in sociology (e.g. Pager, 2003).

Reviewed by Rae Taylor, Associate Professor, Loyola University New Orleans on 4/24/19

The text covers all the areas a research methods textbook should, in an easily digestible way. read more

The text covers all the areas a research methods textbook should, in an easily digestible way.

While there are some quirky examples and passages throughout that undergraduates will probably roll their eyes at, the book reads free of bias and certainly accurate.

The content is indeed up-to-date, and will be easy to update as examples become obsolete.

The book does a great job of covering the material in a straightforward, non-intimidating kind of way. In my experience, students are nervous about taking Research Methods (though, not as nervous as Data Analysis), and this text should put them at ease. It is written in a very undergraduate-friendly way (indeed, probably too rudimentary for graduate students), explaining the more complicated concepts in a clear manner.

The book's writing style and layout are very consistent, which should help students navigate what may otherwise be considered dry material. This is a real plus.

This is a major strength of the book. I teach methods in a variety of formats (i.e. full semester, face-to-face, online, 8-weeks) and need a text that is modular. Not only are the chapters organized in a logical order, the individual chapters are modular, allowing a professor to assign sections of a chapter. This is particularly useful for some of the more complex areas, and areas where the professor would have supplemental materials.

The order of the chapters is logical and the individual chapters are also organized in a logical, useful way.

The text appears to be free of any of these problems. I am not sure how different computers or different software may affect this, but I had no interface issues while reading the text at home or at the office.

I did not detect grammatical errors.

I did not find anything to be culturally insensitive or offensive.

I appreciate very much that there is an open textbook option for research methods. There are many of these texts available, many very good, but they are always quite expensive, and often students will not buy them. As this is one text I believe is critical for a class, having the open text option is a wonderful alternative. I reviewed this book looking for things that were important but omitted, but it was comprehensive and current. I was also particularly concerned about the order of topics, but it has a great layout and order to the chapters. Finally, as stated above, I find the modularity to be a major strength.

Reviewed by DeAnn Kalich, Professor and Head, University of Louisiana at Lafayette on 3/31/19

I like the approach used here because I agree qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary rather than competing. Many methods books divide these out rather than synthesizing; I find that Blackstone has done an excellent job of weaving these complementary methodologies together in her use of real research examples throughout the text. Chapter 3 is excellent not only as an introduction to ethics in research on human subjects, but on the history and purpose of IRB as well. There is no glossary as other reviewers have noted, but I honestly don't mind that. I have seen students rely on such items exclusively and therefore to not read the context or elaboration in the text and to subsequently understand the definition poorly. An index would be nice, but possibly difficult to tie to pages since the formats shift in differing versions (pdf v. online, for example).

The content is accurate and unbiased as it pertains to research methods per se. The presentation of the content, on the other hand, is not error free, and could use some finer editing. For example, there are missing words throughout the first chapter – this should be caught and fixed; it will undermine a student’s value placed upon the book assigned by their instructor. There are also broken links throughout the book but especially heavy in the first two chapters: 1.2 Exercise 3 video link doesn’t work; 1.3 Exercise 2 link is bad for ASA jobs; video clip links don't work in chapters 1, 2, 3.

The book uses both classic and contemporary research studies as excellent examples to further understanding of content. It will be relevant for the future with very little need to update due to obsolescence. I like the arrangement of the content and think it will flow naturally for a research methods class.

This text is one of the most lucid for students I have ever read. Many methods books are written with so much jargon that they hinder rather than help, especially undergraduate students. This text, on the other hand, provides easy to understand examples that are of interest to today's students, especially in North American undergraduate sociology programs.

The text is internally consistent and is well organized. The PDF version, however, is difficult to follow because the page breaks occur at inconvenient places (in the middle of a table or graph, or citation information).

In particular, the subsections in each chapter are divided into small reading sections that can easily be assigned at different points in the course. It is easily realigned to match the subunits of a course you may already teach without being difficult to do.

As stated above, the text is very well organized. It is logically ordered, and topics align closely to those found in most methods texts, but without unnecessary detail or extraneous fluff. Only one non-logical portion exists: Chapter 4 starts with a reference to preceding questions and BethAll and neither are in my version of the book. Not sure what is missing.

Again, the PDF format of the text has more interface issues due to the page-break locations that could be confusing to a student reader especially. Other features such as links to external cites like the ASA can confuse or distract a reader when the promised link is no longer a working link. A regular (twice yearly?) check of all such links is highly recommended.

Grammar is error free but copy editing is not. It is clear that the author is capable of executing complex sentences without grammar errors, but, there are words that are completely absent throughout the text that are obviously proof-reading related. It is highly recommended that there be a copy editor for this text.

The text is inclusive and not offensive or culturally insensitive. It makes use of examples that include a variety of backgrounds and characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, SES).

Chapter 15 is excellent for undergraduate sociology programs that require a research methods sequence for majors. Some of these students will go on to graduate work, but many will not, and this chapter provides real world information on careers using sociology and research methods that is useful and accurate.

Reviewed by Sarah Quick, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, Cottey College on 8/2/18

This book, in general, is comprehensive in that it covers research questions, the research process and design types, major methods or data collection strategies, and ethics from a sociological perspective. It is very accessible for undergraduate readers, but also assumes they are sociology students (as the title would suggest). Nevertheless, as one of the few open access methods books available, I have opted to use this book in a more interdisciplinary research methods course; and I am a cultural anthropologist—so I don’t see it as comprehensive if you include a wider disciplinary breadth. Even when other disciplines are included to locate their differences in framing research questions (chapter 4), anthropology is missing. Nevertheless, anthropology is definitely covered in the field research chapter (chapter 10), and I found this chapter to have a lot of depth in considering field notes and the next steps towards analysis. However, this chapter did not include anything on the more quantitative forms of observation used by some social scientists (even anthropologists). Finally, there could be at least a list or a list of resources for those other missing methods that the author implies exist in the Other Methods chapter (Ch 12).

As previous reviews have noted, there is no index. So, for example, a reader would not necessarily know that there’s a section on content analysis in the Unobtrusive Research chapter (chapter 11) unless reading that section directly. However, if you use the pdf. version instead of the online version, you may search it easily enough with key words/control f.

Part of the comprehensiveness or uniqueness of the text is the inclusion of the three final chapters on broader questions related to research (or why an informed research perspective may help you more broadly). One covers writing/publishing issues, another on how to read research papers critically as well as interpret others’ critiques/interpretations; and the final chapter really addresses the undergraduate audience by highlighting how research appears in jobs that may not be so obviously related to sociology. I imagine these chapters would be really helpful for a specifically-sociology methods course, but I’m not sure I will use all of them for the course I will be teaching.

Overall, a previous reviewer caught many more problems (although some of them were semantic rather than accuracy issues). But, I would agree with this reviewer on the paradigm vs. theory sections. I think these distinctions could be posed with more nuance, within a more interdisciplinary understanding/approach to paradigms and theory. I would agree with this reviewer that the paradigms and the theoretical umbrellas proposed are more overlapping than the author indicated. Also inaccurate is to not mention animal research in the non-human section and to not link this with ethical questions in the social sciences. Although perhaps uncommon in sociology, human-animal interaction studies are a growing area of interest that should not be excluded and require a nod to ethical concerns

The text does use relatively recent examples alongside classic studies, which I think is a good strategy. Nevertheless, some things (like the current president, the reliance/influence of social media) could be updated further.

Overall, the text is written very accessibly, and one of the reasons I plan to use it.

I did not notice any consistency issues although other reviewers did.

The book does reference previous sections/chapters quite a bit, but each section generally stands on its own well enough so that it could be sectioned out in different ways.

Overall the book flows well, and I especially appreciate the resource links and discussion questions at the end of each section.

Depending on whether you use the pdf vs. the online link, you will have a different experience. The online version, at first, seems easier to read until you get to a reference, then your reading is interrupted by the citation/citations, which can make the reading quite disjointed. In the pdf version these citations are in numbered notes that do not link, and the endnotes appear at the end of these sections. Neither interface is completely ideal.

Also, I appreciated the links to additional resources, but at least one link didn’t work (http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_jun_04/).

I did not find any grammatical errors.

Overall, the cultural relevance seems fine for a sociology course, although I would like more examples of cultures/studies outside the U.S., since that’s what I’m more used to as an anthropologist.

As noted above, I plan to use this book supplemented by many other chapters/articles for a Qualitative Methods course I will be teaching, one that is not housed in any one discipline. Because of the book’s accessibility (writing and price), even with the problems noted above, I will use it.

Reviewed by Bernadine Brady, Lecturer, National University of Ireland, Galway on 2/1/18

This text provides a very comprehensive introduction to Research Methods. In my opinion, it covers much of the content required on an undergraduate social science methods course, and is of particular value for sociology students. The value of the book is in providing a comprehensive primer to help students to understand why and how research is undertaken. The reader can then supplement this knowledge with more in-depth texts as required. For example, the text is a little light on the philosophical foundations of qualitative and quantitative research (which may be seen as a strength or a weakness depending on your perspective!). No index or glossary are provided.

The book content was accurate and no errors were noted. The language and content was unbiased.

This book feels like it was written by a young person and draws on a range of examples and case studies that have contemporary relevance, which will have appeal for a lot of students. There are some specific content that will date - for example, in Chapter Four it is stated that Barack Obama is president. However, this content can be easily updated meaning that the book will remain relevant for a long period of time.

The main strength of the book, in my opinion, is its clarity. It is written in a very accessible style and the author does a really good job of explaining difficult concepts and research jargon in a very clear way. Practical examples are used throughout to demonstrate key concepts.

The text appears to be consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

This book can be easily divided into sections. Each chapter has a number of sub-sections, with clear learning objectives and takeaway messages included. I plan to use specific chapters of the book as recommended reading in a number of sessions of my research methods course. It should be noted that qualitative and quantitative methods are considered in tandem which may not lend itself to the teaching of modules dedicated to one approach only.

The structure of the book makes sense, with the topics organised in a logical, clear fashion.

The book is available in both Pdf and online format. The interface is clear and easy to navigate but there are some aberrations with regard to the formatting of in-text references in the online version. This is not a deal breaker - the Pdf version can be used if this is off-putting.

I did not have any issues with regard to grammar.

The content is probably quite North American in focus but has broader cultural applicability. A variety of examples are used that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicity and backgrounds.

In her preface, the author says that she was inspired to write this book from her experience as a student and having ideas about how she would like to be taught. The book is approached in this spirit and is written with the student in mind. There is a strong emphasis on making sociology and social research relevant to the students everyday life and interests. The author does a good job of de-mystifying complex concepts. As a result, it is a very accessible text that will appeal to students both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. I will be recommending this text for my courses.

Reviewed by Joanna Hunter, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 2/1/18

There isn't a glossary at the end of the book, or a list of bolded terms with definitions at the end of each chapter, which would greatly improve its navigability. My experience is that when students see a bolded term, they expect a list of them somewhere with definitions included. There is no index available. That said, the book is a comprehensive introductory textbook about research methods in sociology. The choice to tease out the differences between qualitative and quantitative interviewing is an interesting one, and one that is different from the approach in almost all other methods textbooks I am familiar with. I worry this would confuse students as they tend to want to draw clear lines between qualitative and quantitative methodologies, particularly at the introductory level.

There are a few small inconsistencies as noted in prior reviews, but the book is generally accurate. I will focus the bulk of my comments here on the chapter/section on public sociology. This text focuses very specifically on public sociology, but gives short shrift to policy sociology, with only a short paragraph on page 176 covering it. Particularly as we move into a paradigm where students expect that the skills they learn from our courses and programs will lead them directly to employment opportunities, this is a problematic omission.

Methodology changes comparatively slowly than other subject areas within sociology. That said, several of the examples given should be updated to reflect current realities.

Writing is generally clear, concise, and straightforward. That said, some of the terms used different than the terms I'm familiar with from other textbooks on the subject, which would require a bit of a shift in teaching style. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but could be a barrier to adopting the textbook.

The book is relatively consistent, but there are some editorial errors wherein certain tables/typologies use one set of terms and then other set uses a slightly different set of terms, which could be confusing for students.

The book is organized into modules that could be separated, but not without some work on the part of the instructor. At several points, there are calls back to previous chapters/modules that would need to be edited or addressed by an instructor if they were attempting to only use one (or several) modules.

Topics are organized well, but I found the insistence of including a learning objective for each and every small section to be a bit overbearing.

There are some issues with tables/charts not paginating correctly in the PDF format, and the HTML version sometimes returned a 404 error when using the 'back' button on my browser (Safari). There is no TOC in the PDF version.

No major grammatical errors.

No issues with cultural relevance.

Overall, a useful resource that could be modified to fit a variety of different courses.

Reviewed by Jessica Ganao, Associate Professor, North Carolina Central University on 2/1/18

The text covers all areas and ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index and/or glossary. I especially like Chapter 14, as this something that I often assume students understand but they really do struggle with it. read more

Content is accurate, error-free and unbiased.

Content is up-to-date, but not in a way that will quickly make the text obsolete within a short period of time. The text is written and/or arranged in such a way that necessary updates will be relatively easy and straightforward to implement. I like the fact that is a generic social science methods book because I can then add examples relevant to my field (criminal justice), but at the same time I adjunct at other universities in different disciplines so it will allow me to offer examples in those areas as well.

The text is written in lucid, accessible prose, and provides adequate context for any jargon/technical terminology used. Indeed, this is very important as to make the content accessible to all students.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

The text is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (i.e., enormous blocks of text without subheadings should be avoided). I agree, the text reads like a real book, which makes it easy to divide the content into sections for students and to assign sections for different class activities.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical, clear fashion. The book flows like all the other research texts I have used. It is very consistent with the leading research texts.

The text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems, distortion of images/charts, and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader.

The text is not culturally insensitive or offensive in any way.

I really am excited about this option for my students! I cannot believe a book of this quality is free!

Reviewed by Molly Dondero, Assistant Professor, American University on 2/1/18

Overall, I found the book to be fairly comprehensive. It touches on the main topics covered in an undergraduate sociological methods course, as well as some additional topics such as the chapter on “Research Methods in the Real World.” In general, I found the later chapters to be more comprehensive than the earlier ones. Some of concepts presented in the early chapters would benefit from additional depth. For example, I think the text would benefit from a stronger focus on how theory guides research and particularly, the link between theory, research questions, and hypotheses. The section on research questions could also be expanded. For these reasons, I would likely supplement the text with additional readings and/or lecture to expound on some of these key concepts.

The book lacks a glossary or index, which would be quite helpful.

I found the book to be generally accurate. As explained in my comment above, the explanations of some concepts could be improved by going into more depth, but they are not inaccurate as is.

The content is up-to-date. As is common, many of the examples provided will likely benefit from updating in the next several years, but the core material has longevity.

The writing is one of the main strengths of the text. The writing is clear and engaging. Blackstone defines key terms and concepts in a largely jargon-free fashion. This makes the text well-suited to an undergraduate audience of Sociology majors and non-majors alike.

The text is consistent in terminology and framework. Throughout the book, Blackstone makes references to concepts and examples discussed in previous sections. This adds to the overall consistency of the text and helps students to see how concepts connect.

Chapters are divided into short sections that can be easily assigned to and digested by students. The “Key Takeaways” sections at the end of each chapter are particularly helpful.

The organization of the book, particularly in the first four chapters, was not intuitive to me. If I adopt the text, I will likely teach the chapters out of order. For example, I would likely reverse the order of Chapters 2 and 3 (“Linking Theory and Methods” and “Research Ethics”).

There are no figures in the PDF version. I did not note any other significant interface issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 3

There are no significance grammar issues. However, there are sentences that are cut-off throughout the text (e.g. pp.52, 56, 62, 64 in the PDF version). These sentences all seem to be missing references to other sections of the book. The text would benefit from an additional round of editing to correct these issues.

The language is culturally relevant and inclusive. The author (understandably) draws most heavily on examples from her own research, but overall the examples provided throughout the text are inclusive of a range of diverse backgrounds.

Reviewed by Susan Calhoun-Stuber, Chair, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Colorado State University Pueblo on 2/1/18

The book is a comprehensive social science research methods text. It includes expected topics and some additional attention to some subjects. There is not index or glossary but the chapter titles would guide readers to appropriate topic areas. read more

The author presents a balanced view of different methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives in the social sciences.

There's little problem with current content as the information that needs to be kept current, examples from published research, could easily be updated.

One of the author's stated objectives in writing the text was accessibilty and she has accomplished this goal. Overall, the presentation, including examples, explanations, and definition, is straightforward and clear. The author's style will facilitate student understanding.

The text is internally consistent, within and across chapters.

The text's modularity is a strength. The sub-sections or units within each chapter could easily be reorganized within a different overarching course structure without detracting from the readers' learning or comprehension. Similarly, units within chapters could be re-aligned and chapters could be combined or rearranged with relative ease.

There is a clear logic to the book's organization. The key points (to be covered) and key takeaways at the opening and closing of sections, respectively aid the reader in focusing on core concepts. Resources and exercises function similarly.

There are some tables split across pages, which is distracting. Although many of the links, including re-directs work, several do not. Anyone using the text would need to update or replace - because this is a large number this would be a time-consuming task.

No problem with the writing, technically - at least not anything of a nature to raise this issue to a level of concern.

The heavy use of examples from published research provides a varied range of subject areas for readers, however not always in terms of cultural diversity specifically. While reading the text I was struck more by the diverse presentation than by a need for more inclusiveness. However, there was no offensive content. This part of the text's format however could be a way that users could augment the material by bringing in a more diverse array of examples.

Reviewed by Helen McManus, Adjunct Professor, Librarian, George Mason University on 6/20/17

This review considers this book's usefulness for a political science qualitative methods course. Political science programs typically require only quantitative methods training, therefore I am approaching this text with a distinct student... read more

The book is most comprehensive on questions of data gathering and research ethics. Blackstone quickly runs through research design and philosophy of social science questions. Chapters 6 and 7, on measurement and sampling, respectively, are useful reference points. Chapters 8 through 12 introduce approaches to gathering data--surveys, interviews, field research, content analysis, and, briefly, focus groups and experiments. These chapters explain the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, tips for using each approach, and a very brief note on analysis. Students would need additional readings, exercises, and exposure to software before analyzing any data they collect.

As a text covering both qualitative and quantitative methods, the book is a useful primer with a pragmatic approach to choice of methods (what does your question require?). Blackstone treats quantitative and qualitative methods in parallel, and convincingly construes them as complementary approaches. Chapters on sampling, interviews, and content analysis (under "unobtrusive methods"), for example, consider qualitative and quantitative methods in turn. Students with quantitative methods training may find this reassuring, as the book draws connections between the familiar and the unfamiliar.

Much of the book is applicable across the social sciences, though the discussion of levels of analysis, prominent theories, and library research tools are specific to sociology, as are example research questions. Instructors might supply, or ask students to come up with, examples suitable to political science. Sociology does not typically refer to "puzzles", so political science instructors would need to introduce that in other course materials.

There is no index or glossary.

Like other reviewers, I have some concerns about terminology, such as in the discussion of paradigms and theories in the earlier chapters.

I was struck that gender remains male/masculine, female/feminine, or "other, though. This is an outdated approach, both within and beyond the academy.

Blackstone uses some contemporary (ish) examples, such as the Brangelina phenomenon, but she explains them well enough to keep readers on board. Links out to videos and cartoons are an excellent idea, but some links are already dead (for example, in section 10.1 there is a dead link to a cartoon: Cotham, F. (2003, September 1). Two barbarians and a professor of barbarian studies. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.cartoonbank.com/2003/two-barbarians-and-a-professor-of-barbarian-studies/invt/126562 )

This book is concise and easy to read. Blackstone uses clear, unpretentious language. In the online interface, readers can hover over bolded technical terms to see a quick definition.

I have no concerns here.

The chapters and sections lend themselves to easy rearrangement. For example, I plan to use chapter 15 (Research Methods in the Real World) belongs at the beginning of a course.

I am also incorporating sections of chapters into my online course. I find it helpful that each section of a chapter comes with its own learning objectives, key take aways, and exercises. Sections are clearly labeled, and the linked table of contents makes it easy to send students straight to a section of interest.

The chapters lead students from basic terminology to research design, on to data gathering, and then to possible uses of both research and newly acquired skills. I appreciate the early chapter on research ethics, prior to questions of research design.

Within each chapter, there are several sections of a manageable length. Each section opens with learning objectives, and closes with "key take aways" in a green box and "exercises" in a blue box.

The online interface is extremely simple. The most consistent navigation tool is a link to the Table of Contents, top and center of the interface. The additional navigation tools, though, vary somewhat. In some chapters, a reader can navigate to the next section (of that chapter); in other chapters, a similarly placed link allows the reader to navigate to the next chapter only. I found this inconsistency mildly troublesome, and quickly decided to rely on the ToC for moving between chapters and sections.

I notice that the PDF has unfortunately placed page breaks--some tables sit across two pages. The PDF also lacks a table of contents.

Blackstone writes in a casual tone, often using informal constructions and technically incorrect but ordinary usages. I find this inoffensive, and suspect that students will too. I noticed just one typographical error substantial enough to confuse a reader.

The text includes examples referring to gender roles, people of color, urban and rural contexts. As mentioned above, the use of male/female/other categories for gender is problematic, and hopefully would be addressed in any updates.

Citations are oddly inserted into sentences. Immediately following each regular in-text parenthetical citation, there is also a full (works cited list) citation, right there in the text. This is distracting.

Reviewed by Matthew DeCarlo, Assistant Professor, Radford University on 4/11/17

This book covers all of the important concepts in an introductory research methods text. Some of the more advanced concepts (e.g. types of validity and reliability) are cut out of this textbook, which is a choice I understand. Students are often overwhelmed by the more advanced concepts within a chapter. This book does a great job of focusing on the important parts of each concept.

The content inside the book is accurate. Definitions of key research concepts are explained correctly and clearly.

This book is relevant well outside of its own discipline of sociology. Additionally, the research used for examples is generally from the last few years. While those examples would need to be updated as time moves forward, the core content will remain relevant for decades.

The language used to write this research textbook is the best I have seen so far in my career as a research methods instructor. Students are often put off by research language, and the author does an excellent job of avoiding jargon and making her language plain.

The framework of the book is perhaps its greatest strength. The author has framed research concepts within the proper epistemological and ontological frameworks, which allows her even-handed treatment of qualitative and quantitative methods to cohere well within each section.

This is a highly modular book. Chapters are subdivided into smaller subsections, so they can be easily assigned and rearranged by professors teaching from the text. Because the pages are hosted in HTML format, students can follow links to each chapter and subsection, rather than scrolling through a long PDF.

Organization is remarkably clear throughout. Each chapter flows conceptually into the next.

I had problems with almost all of the graphics used in this textbook. They are referenced in the text and are often integral to understanding concepts as presented. This happened in both the HTML and PDF versions of the text. In spite of those issues, the overall ease of navigation was strong.

No grammar errors noted .

Culturally inclusive language is used throughout the text.

What is perhaps most promising about this text is that it is hosted on GitHub. Any professor who wanted to adapt this text for their discipline or make changes can easily do so using an HTML editor and GitHub.

Additionally, the author does a fantastic job of putting qualitative and quantitative research on equal footing, rather than relegating qualitative research to one or two chapters.

Reviewed by Mikaila Arthur, Associate Professor, Rhode Island College on 4/11/17

There is no index or glossary. The chapter on theory provides many useful explanations, but never focuses on the question of what theory or why it is an important part of sociological research. The chapter on research ethics is better. though in... read more

The chapter on theory provides many useful explanations, but never focuses on the question of what theory or why it is an important part of sociological research. The chapter on research ethics is better. though in discussing the issue of confidentiality it is important to mention that not all researchers promise confidentiality (see Mitch Duneier's "Sidewalk", for example) and that this is a controversial issue in research given the fact that some research participants would prefer their identities to be known. It would also be helpful to explain more about the IRB process and to talk about recent examples of research fraud and the replicability crisis.

The discussion of sociological questions uses language different from what most sociologists use, contrasting empirical questions to ethical--rather than normative--ones. Ethics, to me, are a subset of normative issues, not synonymous with them. However, the section on what makes a good question is very strong, though it never points out the importance of having a NEW question. In discussing the literature review process, the book focuses insufficient attention on the parts of the article important to reviewing literature--students following the author's advice are likely to turn in literature reviews focused on methods and limitations rather than findings.

The section on conceptualization is very good, and more thorough than in many texts. However, the discussion of operationalization is weaker, not giving students the foundation they need to really struggle through what many believe is the hardest part of the research methods curriculum. It would be useful to mention binary variables.

The discussion of sampling does not address appropriate sample size, margins of error, etc. The discussion of study design (cross-sectional, longitudinal, etc.) appears inside the survey research chapter, making it appear as if study design is not an important criterion in other sorts of research. But the discussion of survey question design is great.

The chapters on individual methods of data collection are generally stronger, though the chapter on unobtrusive measures would benefit from more attention to archival research. Also, the discussion of experiments would benefit from more attention both to the benefits of experiments for studying causality and the ethical issues that experiments raise. The chapter on sharing work should say more about the structure and format of articles and should contain a section on writing research proposals, as that is a key element of many research methods courses.

If this text were used in a one-semester research methods course, it probably has too little on data analysis; if it is used in the first semester of a two-semester course where analysis is covered separately, then the coverage of many topics seems a bit superficial.

In general, the content is accurate and unbiased, but there are a few exceptions. Many research methods instructors and textbooks would take issue with the way reliability and validity are defined here and the examples provided. The author also ought to present MUCH more in the way of cautions around convenience samples. The text also does not seem to understand the difference between a phone survey and an interview--but given the closed-ended (and machine-administered) nature of many contemporary phone surveys, there is a big difference. It also seems odd that focus groups are shunted off to a different chapter rather than treated as a kind of interview.

The discussion of measurement of gender, on page 71, seems to be a bit out-of-date--most scholars of gender now would suggest that just adding "other" to male and female is insufficient.

The most recent examples seem to come from about 2011, with more clustered between 2008 and 2010. While I absolutely agree that we should not have new editions just to have new editions, there does come a time when books begin to seem out of date. A couple of years from now, these examples will be from when our students were in middle school--so I hope there is a plan to update the book by then.

Examples, though, would generally seem relevant to students, and I like the examples from student work throughout the book (I do hope the author had permission to use them).

There are several instances in which the author uses terminology different from that typically used in research methods texts and courses. I wouldn't say the terminology is inaccurate, exactly, but it would require a major adjustment among instructors to adapt to using language consistent with the text. Otherwise, the writing is generally clear and terms are defined as needed.

There are some issues with internal consistency. For example, Table 2.1 on page 17 lays out four theoretical paradigms; table 2.2 on page 18 applies these paradigms to the sociology of sport, but it leaves one of them out with no explanation--these seem like editing problems more than authorial ones, though.

Many sections of the book are self-referential, which would make it hard to fully reorganize the text. This is especially notable in the section on reading research articles in chapter 15, which many instructors would want to use along with material from early in the text about the literature review process. Subsections are clearly marked with subheadings, but the format of the book would make it more difficult to locate, find, and separately assign these subsections.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 2

The text does seem to jump around quite a bit--the section on how to read research results occurs long after students are introduced to reading articles, for instance. In the chapters on different research methods, the discussion of strengths and weaknesses comes before students are fully introduced to those methods. And the lack of detailed table of contents or chapter summaries at the beginning of chapters makes it harder to follow the flow of the book.

Interface rating: 1

The text does not have a cover page or a table of contents.

The pagination is not very well done--tables break across pages in the middle of rows, for example. Similarly, headings sometimes occur at the end of pages, with the text on a subsequent page. Fonts sometimes seem to change sizes, particularly for endnote references and and table titles referred to in the text (and endnote numbers are not clickable, which seems unfortunate in an electronic text). A number of links referred to in the text are broken. It would be helpful to have a detailed table of contents laying out chapter subsections. Some keywords appear in bold and others do not. There are editing errors, typos, spaces missing after periods, etc. Many figures are indicated but are missing (for example, diagrams of inductive and deductive research processes are mentioned, but they do not appear in the text--this is a really bad omission). Generally, this text does not make use of any of the features which would be beneficial in an online text, but yet is not set up to be a well-designed print text.

Other than typos, as referenced in the interface section, I noted no issue with grammar or writing.

I did not notice anything which was culturally insensitive of offensive. Examples were generally appropriate, though primarily focused on American sociology. Given the author's scholarly focus as a sociologist of gender, work, and family, it should not be suprising that examples are more likely to relate to these areas, leaving issues of race, sexuality, ethnicity, immigration, language, religion, disability, etc. to have much lesser coverage. Given that this is a research methods course, this may not be a primary concern for many instructors, but those teaching in very diverse institutions may want to think about whether the text has sufficient relevance to their students' backgrounds, concerns, and experiences. I would also point out here that the text does seem to assume a traditionally-aged residential classroom composition, not the norm for many of us.

The text includes suggested exercises, but these are not really exercises. Some are discussion questions, others suggest students "check out" links or view images which are not contained within the text (no link given). I do not recommend instructors use this text unless they really have no other adequate alternatives--the lack of appropriate visuals, editing errors, etc. make it easy for students accustomed to higher-quality resources to dismiss it, and you'd be just as well off using a collection of websites as this.

Reviewed by Alexa Smith-Osborne, Professor, University of Texas at Arlington on 4/11/17

This text's comprehensiveness, in combination with simple language suited to first exposure to the topic, is one of the chief strengths of the book. However, community-based participatory action research methods were not included in this text, thus reducing its utility for the social work discipline. I especially liked the linked in-text definitions, which provide an easy-to-use glossary to enhance reading comprehension for undergraduates.

The text is accurate and unbiased for its discipline. For optimal utility in social work teaching, the text would need to be used with a companion file using social work examples, including social justice-focused research using community-based participatory action methods. These methods were not included in this text.

Relevance/longevity of content is one of the main objectives of this textbook. For social work, chapters 14 “Reading and Understanding Social Research” and 15 “Research Methods in the Real World”, are the most directly relevant since, as a profession, we do applied research.

Its simple language makes it accessible to most undergraduates, and the in-text "drop-down" definitions provide adequate support to allow comprehension of technical terminology.

The content was internally consistent, and sufficient aids were provided in tables and headings/subheadings to promote consistency.

Tie-ins to earlier material, tables, and headings/subheadings made the text easily divisible into smaller reading sections and discrete modules for instructor use.

Accessibility is one off the main objectives of this text. It succeeded in reaching this objective, through logical and clear organization, structure, and flow, including many connectors to earlier concepts.

The online version had greater interface than the pdf version, but both were useable.

I did not see any grammatical errors.

Cultural diversity is discussed within the context of the social constructivist theoretical perspective. Measurement and study examples which focus on cultural differences are presented throughout, making this text particularly syntonic with social work values. The text makes use of examples that are inclusive of a variety of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.

With a companion portfolio of materials on community-based participatory action methods and social justice-focused research examples, this text would be suitable to use in an undergraduate social work research course.

Reviewed by Robert Liebman, Professor, Portland State University on 2/8/17

Text is comprehensive in two senses: it covers what is standard in Research Methods texts and it serves the author’s focus on teaching research design/methods to prepare students for undertaking a research project (or doing a research proposal). Late in the book (159) is review of 6 key “diagnostic” questions on a research project: Why? How? For whom? What conclusions can I draw? Knowing what I know now, what would I do differently? How could the research be improved? These are diagnostic questions, to ask at the end of a project (and could be used as guidelines that reflect a grading rubric). Missing for me at the start are: a) flow-chart that would list of the steps in doing a project, roughly: 1. Turning an interest into a research question, 2. Design the research, 3. Choosing appropriate methods, 4. Collecting Data, 5. Summarizing/Synthesizing, 6. Write up a report & b) a look-forward to the last chapters including the 6 key “diagnostic” questions that says what you will learn from the book I like that the text conveys to students a sense of agency – if you learn methods, you can design/do research. I like section 13.3 which suggests that sociologists write for both academic or public audiences. The author comes to the writing having done both academic and public sociology – that adds a engaging perspective lacking from mainstream texts (Babbie, Schutt) Great ! On that point, a special feature of the text is the final chapter (Research Methods in the Real World) that gives a rationale for the benefits/payoffs of studying sociology: getting a job/building a career, being a judge of research reported in the media. One regret is that too little is said of the payoff having sociological research skills (surveys, statistical training) for doing environmental stewardship and public citizenship I used the pdf and think most students will not be logged on while reading the text. It does not provide a Table of Contents, glossary, or an index. Adding them would make much easier to use the book. BTW Table 15.1 "Transferable Skills Featured in This Text" could be redone as a TofContents.

There are many strong chapters (measurement, survey methods, fieldwork plus other qualitative methods that are sometimes left out) and well-written sections (conceptualization, operationalization) But I found Ch 2 Linking Theory with Methods confusing. The setup says it will cover “connections between paradigms, social theories, and social scientific research methods. We’ll also consider how one’s analytic, paradigmatic, and theoretical perspective might shape or be shaped by her or his methodological choices” Then: “While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.” We go from 4 paradigms to 3 theoretical perspectives in a chart of examples on sport – these are illustrated but not well-explained. I like the treatment of styles of doing research in Charles Ragin, Constructing Social Research

I found discussion of micro-, meso-, and macro confusing. One study question asks: “Identify and distinguish between micro-, meso-, and macrolevel considerations with respect to the ethical conduct of social scientific research” Hard to answer based on text

I think that the terms “nomothetic” and “ideographic” are not well-defined nor is the link btw causality and tests of hypotheses well-explained. The matter of “falsifiability” is not discussed In my view, most confusing chapter.

Text lacks a discussion of control in the section on experimental design Might ask students what prior knowledge of experiments they got before coming into the course

I believe there is confusion about the roles of quantitative/qualitative in confirmation vs contextualization (p56) Multi-methods folks sometimes use “theoretical” sampling to assemble focus groups to clarify (more than contextualize) survey responses from subgroups

One small error: Rik Scarce studied radical environmental movement, not animal rights

Up-to-date and easily updated

Here the book shines. Major strengths: clear writing, engaging research examples, easy-to-understand tables, plus provides Learning objectives/Takeaways that encourage preview and review by students Re use of jargon/technical terminology – Add glossary

Internally consistent – enhanced by “look-back” devices such as Table 15.1 "Transferable Skills Featured in This Text"

High modularity both of chapters: Easy to re-arrange the order to fit different instructor’s styles and of entries: Short and crisp – can be read in a short sitting. As written, allows instructors to insert other examples/illustrations or remove sections that are less central (eg Conversation Analysis)

The inclusion of links to YouTube and other media (Colbert interview with Sudhir Venketash) is a very important feature that allows instructors to have students preview at home & review in class for discussion .... The book opens way to using resources outside of it

I might introduce What is Sociology? ahead of Ethics – but that option is open to an adopter of the book

Online and pdf versions differ – While most links work in pdf, it does not include some Figures, Table of Contents

No objections to author’s usage. Some sentences are truncated. (p55)

In my view, not culturally insensitive or offensive. However, the book has a bias in that it reflects Armstrong’s research on women’s movements & sexual harassment. Few examples address race, ethnicity, class – These could be added for balance and reaching instructors who cover fields different from author.

I love how the book invites students to engage the topic by sharing examples of the topics offered by students in her course.

A strong text that matches the organization of standard texts which replicate themselves from generation to generation. Hoping to go beyond them, I wish the text had more full-blown discussions of how sociologists write for different audiences as in Charles Ragin, Constructing Social Research and of how sociologists make inferences from data (which comes into some of the examples eg The Second Shift). Give a bit more on how to write up results

Reviewed by Anna Berardi, Professor, George Fox University on 2/8/17

This text is comprehensive in scope and depth of content. The HTML version is extremely effective in helping the reader identify material as listed in the ToC. The PDF and DOCx versions are difficult to manage and do not have an attached ToC. read more

This text was written by a professor who teaches this material in the higher ed setting. His expertise and familiarity with how to make this subject matter accessible is evident.

This text is covering both timeless, mainstream research methods relevant to all social and behavioral science professions, as well as newer methods common in post-modern research.

The layout makes the information very easy to access. The outline / section formatting "chunks" (breaks down into manageable form) information that is otherwise dry when assembled in the traditional narrative format.

Concepts build on each other, and consistent language is used throughout.

As I was reviewing clarity, its strength is its use of divided sections - very nicely done making the text easy to use.

Research methods has a natural flow to the way information builds on each other, and that is evident in this text.

Loved manuevering in HTML, but had preferred PDF so I could annotate. Wished that the ToC was in all formats.

Well edited; no issues with grammatical errors.

Sociology is by nature aware of contextual identities, and this is evident in the types of examples given.

Two main recommendations: 1. Please make the author's name visible 2. Please include the Table of Contents attached to all versions of the text.

Thank you for a great resource!

Reviewed by Noelle Chesley, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on 1/7/16

I find the text to be very comprehensive. I think it covers most of the topics and subtopics one would expect to see in an undergraduate sociology research methods text. However, within topics, this text may not cover details as comprehensively as some other texts out there (I describe the texts I am familiar with at the end of this review). Just as one example, in the survey research chapter (ch. 8), the author(s) point out that different methods of survey delivery (in person, online, etc.) have pros and cons, but these are not contrasted in any detail, particularly in terms of how they might influence response rates or allow (or not) for sufficient coverage of the sampling frame. However, for those instructors that incorporate a research project (such as developing a research proposal), the text covers elements of research planning, design, and development that are not necessarily well-covered in some other texts, an addition which I believe adds to the texts’ comprehensiveness. The final chapter (Research methods in the Real World) that connects research skills to possible career tracks and one’s role as an engaged citizen is excellent and is material that is often not present in these sorts of books, but should be.

My read suggests that this text is generally accurate. I was not aware of any instances of bias in the presentation of material (although as a white, women academic, I may be subject to the same biases as the author of the book!).

In thinking about the relevance/longevity of a research methods text, I would focus on: 1) examples used to illustrate key concepts; and 2) how up-to-date more rapidly changing topics are in terms of addressing areas of development (survey methods, sampling). This text utilizes examples (like illustrations from President Obama’s election), that may seem dated at some point. On the other hand, the topic on survey research accurately (see point 2, above) reflects the current state of knowledge about the relationship between survey response rates and the potential for bias. This is an area that has been changing rapidly, so keeping up with current state of knowledge will be important. In general, though the examples and cultural references are those most likely to date a text. There are such references in this text that may make students say “huh?” in just a few years.

Clarity rating: 3

In general, writing clarity is a strength of this text. Overall, the ideas are delivered in a very clear, understandable way. However, one element that detracted from clarity for me were embedded, full citations in the text. Throughout the book, when a particular research study is mentioned, the entire citation is embedded in the sentence, which was cumbersome to encounter as a reader. In addition, there are places where the clarity of the text falls apart (see point 10 in this rating for more). The embedded citations are cumbersome enough, that I think they detract substantially from clarity, which is reflected in my rating.

I found the text to be generally consistent in terms of use of terminology and framework.

There is an inherent tradeoff in writing a text that utilizes hyperlinks and makes references to earlier sections or discussions and modularity, or the ability to use portions of the text in a stand-alone fashion. I do think it would be possible to use sections of the text, rather than the whole text, to support teaching in particular areas. There will be some references to material in previous chapters or sections that the student has not read, but many of the chapters could also stand on their own to support teaching of a particular topic in research methods.

The organization of ideas and subtopics adds to the overall clarity. Similar ideas are grouped together and hyperlinks back to earlier ideas in later sections reinforce the organization, which enhances the overall clarity of the text (see clarity, above).

The .pdf of the text does not contain a table of contents, which I found limiting in using the text. There is also no information about the author in the beginning of the document. The only way to get either of these pieces of information is in the open text web entry for this book. The text does contain a number of hyperlinks. While I did not try every link (not even close), my own attempt to use some of these found just a few that don’t work (e.g., the link at the bottom of p. 9). Most links, however, did connect as expected. There are also places within the text where the font changes—this is distracting.

There are regular writing errors in the text. For instance, in section 9.1, it looks like a sentence referencing Regis Filban (will anyone know who this is in a few years?) was cut off and lives as a fragment in the current version. In fact, this whole opening paragraph is not well-written. Similar problems are apparent in the opening paragraph of chapter 10.

In thinking about cultural relevance in a research methods text, I tried to think about the descriptions of research—what sorts of examples get used to illustrate particular techniques or problems, as well as depictions of what a methods student might look like. In terms of research examples, I think the text utilizes a fairly wide variety of examples, although studies focused on gender seemed more common than those investigating race/ethnicity or class, for example. I also noted one instance of depictions of methods students (p. 152, focus group chapter) that provided illustrations of research participants using names like “Sally,” “Joe” and “Ashley.” A more diverse set of names (Jose, Darnisha, etc.) in an instance like this might add to cultural relevance of the text.

? I have been regularly teaching undergraduate research methods since 2005, and I teach in both in-person and fully online formats. I have been using Schutt’s Investigating the Social World as my primary teaching text in these courses, and this is the book that was my implicit comparison as I read the Blackstone text. However, I am also familiar with Neuman’s text and had parts of that book in mind, as well, as I read this text. The strengths of the text include its coverage of how to construct research questions and research documents as well as how the skills developed in an undergraduate course might translate to life outside of higher education. Weaknesses include a still “rough” look to the final document and some topic areas where coverage might not be as detailed as one would like. Overall, a solid text that has the potential to make teaching research methods more affordable for students.

Reviewed by Alison Bianchi, Associate Professor, University of Iowa on 1/7/16

This textbook covers all of the research methods needed for an undergraduate level research methods course. I have specific concerns that I will address in the "accuracy" section, but overall I am pleased with this book. I have used it in one... read more

However, as far as I could tell (and just in case I missed an update, I just downloaded the PDF from Saylor's Website just now), there is no glossary or index for this book. It would be great to have at least a glossary of terms, as there are quite a few! Given that this is one of the criteria for comprehensiveness, I do have to grade accordingly.

The author works very hard to diminish biases that are often found in Research Methods texts, and are taught in classes. Dr. Blackstone is no "Methods snob" -- she does the correct thing by telling students that it is the nature of research question that should drive one to use the method. This means that no method should be privileged just because the researcher(s) prefers it.

As far as accurate and error free, this is where I have concerns. I'll address them one by one:

(1) When discussing the micro-meso-macro level definitions and examples on page 13, the author muddles the concepts by suggesting that the meso-level is about studying groups, and the micro-level is more about individuals. Actually, micro-level scholars study groups, too. Accordingly, the author should use some definitions from the sociology of organizations literature, and define the meso-level as that which describes ORGANIZATIONS and the micro-level as potentially for SMALL GROUPS, such as dyads and triads. This issue is also found on page 14, first two full paragraphs.

(2) In the "Sociological Theories" section starting on page 17, the author has some problems discussing what is and isn't theory. The problem, of course, is not the author's, but rather the fact that sociologists cannot agree on what is theory! Accordingly, there's a way to deal with this issue -- I recommend using Abend's (2008) typology for the 7 ways that sociologists discuss theory. For example, some would say that "symbolic interactionism" is NOT a theory, but rather a paradigm. So, the discussion of what a theory is and what a paradigm is gets muddled and confusing for students. Using the aforementioned typology will help sort this out.

(3) In the section on IRB, page 25, the authors states that there are "human" and "non-human" sources of information, and that the "human" one refers to human subjects and the "non-human" one refers to data derived from humans, such as content analyses. However, there is a third possibility, and that is that "non-human" subjects are animals that are not homo sapiens. The IRB protocols for these subjects is a whole different ball of wax!! So, I would just use the terms "human" and "non-living" throughout.

(4) On page 52, the terms "idiographic" and "nomothetic" are poorly defined, as well as throughout the text, and not well linked to the concepts of qualitative and quantitative research throughout the text, or to the concepts of deductive or inductive ways of knowing. I recommend a brief history of the concepts and a better way to connect all of these notions of the theory-data linkage.

(5) In the section on causality, around page 54, I had many red flags. First, you simply cannot say that any qualitative method reveals causal relationships. This method is not designed for that! Qualitative research can suggest hypotheses, but it cannot reveal relationships. And, quite frankly, for other reasons, neither can quantitative methods! The author really must discuss the difference between causal theory and hypothesized relationships -- any test of a hypothesis can never be a perfect test of causation. Nomothetic theory can conceptualize it, but quantitative tests can never, ever completely capture causation.

(6) When discussing hypotheses on page 59, hypotheses have two other qualities that are of utmost importance: (1) falsifiability and (2) repeatability.

(7) On page 61, the use of the term "triangulation" is interesting. I realize that in the feminist literature that this is a way to describe multi-method studies, but it's confusing for students because triangulation is also a technique for qualitative studies to collect many points of view. I realize that this is problem with so many concepts in research methods -- take the term "control", for example. We have control variables, control conditions, experimental control -- just too many concepts that are different, but use the same word. Can we avoid this for yet another concept?

(8) The section on Experiments is not great. First, "true experiments" are not ones with experiment and control conditions -- they are those that use random assignment. "Quasi-experiments", including those with just post-tests, are those without this technique. And yes, experimentalists have to deal with external validity, but the author writes the text as if they have never considered that or found ways to deal with it. That's simply not true. In general, I just don't use this section when I teach experiments.

(9) I found the chapters on measurement and operationalization, survey methods, and qualitative methods to be first rate!

The content is up-to-date, and can be easily updated. However, I would like to see more examples of data collection using the Internet, social media, and other digital media.

I found the prose to be very accessible, and so did my students. The author does have a much more casual tone than other Research Methods books (for example, she uses "OK" a lot), but I like that, and so do my students. Methods is dry enough -- why not make the text more accessible and readable?

The text is very internally consistent. Dr. Blackstone correctly refers back to examples and concepts throughout the book.

I do think that the modularity is well done. In fact, I could easily assign chapters out of order. For instance, I always start my methods courses with ethics before we do anything else. That chapter stands alone very well, and can be assigned right away. Also, the chapter referring to "what is sociology" is somewhere around Chapter 4, but I just assign that next.

I would change the order of the topics, but this is just my style. Most Research Methods books follow the format of the author's, so that OK. However, Chapter 2's content on theory meanders a bit. I would reorganize it to start with paradigms, then theories, then the micro-meso-macro discussion.

We need a Table of Contents!!! And, throughout the text there are references to figures ... I looked in the back of the book, I downloaded it a couple of times to see if my computer was the problem, etc. No -- there are no figures!

I caught many mistakes. While Dr. Blackstone likes to split infinitives and use "in order to", a phrase that should be struck from the English language, I'm willing to forgive! However, there were typos that were problematic -- I'm not going to list all of them, but see page 55, paragraphs 5 and 6, for example. Both paragraphs have sentences that end with "in ." Weird.

I would do another thorough edit.

Dr. Blackstone goes out of her way to make sure that she is inclusive, especially with her research examples.

I really liked how Dr. Blackstone discusses what it's like to be a professional sociologist. Many of my students wonder: (1) what do I do and (2) what kind of jobs that they can get with a degree in Sociology? It's nice that Dr. Blackstone includes examples from her own life, and explains to the students that being a strong methodologist could one day land them a job!

Reviewed by Susan Burke, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma on 1/12/15

I used two online textbooks for my Fall 2014 course and this Blackstone text was far more comprehensive than the other one. It contained either chapters or short sections on nearly everything that I wanted to cover with the course, although for... read more

To the best of my knowledge the text was accurate. One student commented in the course evaluation that he found several typos in the text and that undermined his faith in the content, so possibly the book could use a check up by a copy editor.

This is a research methods book written specifically for undergraduate sociology students and it does a very good job of molding the information to fit that audience. I happened to be using the text for an introductory master's course in a different subject field, so the very purposeful focus on sociology made the book somewhat less translatable. In order to help my students make the cognitive leap to apply the concepts to their interests, I supplemented the text with articles and other readings from my discipline.

The book is well-written in a manner that makes the concepts clear and easy to understand for students who are beginners to research methods.

The book's structure and style was consistent across chapters and sections.

This book was available in two versions, a web version where you would click on a chapter from the index and it would take you to a separate page for that chapter, and a full length PDF. I strongly preferred the clickable web version as it was easier to jump right to the needed section, and I would use that to give the specific web site address for the chapter to students weekly. Many chapters were further divided into sections which were also linked so one could jump directly to that section of the chapter. This was a very useful feature.

The book was not arranged in the order in which I present the topcis in the course that I teach. However, the order that the author used is logical.

This was excellent. It was easy to access and easy to navigate. Several students reported being delighted with their ability to access and use the text easily from anywhere that was internet-enabled. One student suggested that the interface could be enhanced with a navigation bar on the side of the page that would facilitate jumping to other chapters.

I have no opinion on this - while I didn't notice grammatical errors, it's possible that they may exist in the text.

The author has given examples from sociological studies that have examined controversial topics, but she has done so with care and in a non-offensive manner.

There are some features of published works that were not available with this textbook. One is a date. I was unable to find any indication of when the book was written. Another is that it has no index. That is one function for which the PDF was a better option as one can use the "find" feature for keywords throughout the text.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Linking Methods With Theory
Chapter 3: Research Ethics
Chapter 4: Beginning a Research Project
Chapter 5: Research Design
Chapter 6: Defining and Measuring Concepts
Chapter 7: Sampling
Chapter 8: Survey Research: A Quantitative Technique
Chapter 9: Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Chapter 10: Field Research: A Qualitative Technique
Chapter 11: Unobtrusive Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Chapter 12: Other Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
Chapter 13: Sharing Your Work
Chapter 14: Reading and Understanding Social Research
Chapter 15: Research Methods in the Real World

Ancillary Material

About the book.

The author of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods , Amy Blackstone, started envisioning this textbook while sitting in her own undergraduate sociology research methods class. She enjoyed the material but wondered about its relevance to her everyday life and future plans (the idea that one day she would be teaching such a class hadn't yet occurred to her).

Now that she teaches the research methods course, she realizes that students today wonder the very same thing. While the importance of understanding research methods is usually clear to those students who intend to pursue an advanced degree, Amy wanted to write a text that would assist research methods teachers in demonstrating to all types of students the relevance of this course.

In addition, Amy Blackstone's experience as an active researcher who uses both qualitative and quantitative methods made her acutely aware of the need for a balanced approach in teaching methods of sociological inquiry.

Together, Amy Blackstone's experiences as a student, researcher, and teacher shape the three overriding objectives of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Relevance, Balance, and Accessibility.

Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods emphasizes the relevance of research methods for the everyday lives of its readers, undergraduate students.Each chapter describes how research methodology is useful for students in the multiple roles they fill:

As consumers of popular and public information
As citizens
As current and future employees. Connections to these roles are made throughout and directly within the main text of the book

Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods also provides balanced coverage of qualitative and quantitative approaches by integrating a variety of examples from recent and classic sociological research. The text challenges students to debate and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.

Finally, one of the most important goals Amy had for Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods was to introduce students to the core principles of social research in a way that is straightforward and engaging. As such, the text reflects public sociology's emphasis on making sociology accessible and readable. No one can validate that claim more than a teacher or student. So, take a look for yourself today and review Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods by Amy Blackstone to see if its approach toward relevance, balance, and accessibility are right for your course and students.

About the Contributors

Amy Blackstone is Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of Maine. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, her research includes studies of workplace harassment, childfree adults, and activism in the breast cancer and anti-rape movements. Her work has appeared in a variety of journals and edited volumes including Gender & Society, Law & Society Review, American Sociological Review, and Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. Blackstone has served as a Consulting Editor for Contexts, the American Sociological Association’s public-interest magazine. She is currently a member of the Social Science Research Group on the University of Maine’s National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant, for which she examines faculty satisfaction and the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women faculty in particular. Blackstone enjoys her work with numerous undergraduate research assistants and student clubs. In 2011 she received the University of Maine’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Outstanding Faculty Award in Teaching/Advising. Blackstone received her Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Minnesota and her B.A. in Sociology at Luther College.

Contribute to this Page

University Library

Evaluating Sources
Finding Articles
Reference Resources
Annotated Bibliography
Structure & Resources
Types of Scholarly Articles
Literature Reviews
Empirical Studies
Qualitative Methods
Not sure what 'peer review' means?
Citation Searching
How to Avoid Plagiarism
Citing with APA style
Citing with ASA style
Writing Guides & Help
Recommended Websites
Media Resources
Sociological Data
Google Scholar
CSU+ & InterLibrary Loan

Qualitative Research

What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is characterised by its aims, which relate to understanding some aspect of social life, and its methods which (in general) generate words, rather than numbers, as data for analysis.

For researchers more familiar with quantitative methods, which aim to measure something (such as the percentage of people with a particular disease in a community, or the number of households owning a bed net), the aims and methods of qualitative research can seem imprecise. Common criticisms include:

samples are small and not necessarily representative of the broader population, so it is difficult to know how far we can generalise the results;
the findings lack rigour;
it is difficult to tell how far the findings are biased by the researcher’s own opinions.

Qualitative methods generally aim to understand the experiences and attitudes of patients, the community or health care worker. These methods aim to answer questions about the ‘what’, ‘how’ or ‘why’ of a phenomenon rather than ‘how many’ or ‘how much’, which are answered by quantitative methods.

Source: www.alnap.org/pool/files/ qualitative - research - method ology.pdf

Ethnography

The ethnographic approach to qualitative research comes largely from the field of anthropology. The emphasis in ethnography is on studying an entire culture. Originally, the idea of a culture was tied to the notion of ethnicity and geographic location (e.g., the culture of the Trobriand Islands), but it has been broadened to include virtually any group or organization. That is, we can study the "culture" of a business or defined group (e.g., a Rotary club).

Source: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualapp.php

Methods of Qualitative Research

Qualitative researchers findings are collected through a variety of methods, and often, a researcher will use at least two or several of the following while conducting a qualitative study.

Direct observation: With direct observation, a researcher studies people as they go about their daily lives without participating or interfering.

In-depth interviews: Researchers conduct in-depth interviews by speaking with participants in a one-on-one setting. Sometimes a researcher approaches the interview with a predetermined list of questions or topics for discussion but allows the conversation to evolve based on how the participant responds.

Ethnographic observation: Ethnographic observation is the most intensive and in-depth observational method.

Open-ended surveys: While many surveys are designed to generate quantitative data, many are also designed with open-ended questions that allow for the generation and analysis of qualitative data.

An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods

Direct Observation, Interviews, Participation, Immersion, Focus Groups

Research, Samples, and Statistics
Key Concepts
Major Sociologists
News & Issues
Recommended Reading
Archaeology

Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from these data that help understand social life through the study of targeted populations or places.

People often frame it in opposition to quantitative research , which uses numerical data to identify large-scale trends and employs statistical operations to determine causal and correlative relationships between variables.

Within sociology, qualitative research is typically focused on the micro-level of social interaction that composes everyday life, whereas quantitative research typically focuses on macro-level trends and phenomena.

Key Takeaways

Methods of qualitative research include:

observation and immersion
open-ended surveys
focus groups
content analysis of visual and textual materials
oral history

Qualitative research has a long history in sociology and has been used within it for as long as the field has existed.

This type of research has long appealed to social scientists because it allows the researchers to investigate the meanings people attribute to their behavior, actions, and interactions with others.

While quantitative research is useful for identifying relationships between variables, like, for example, the connection between poverty and racial hate, it is qualitative research that can illuminate why this connection exists by going directly to the source—the people themselves.

Qualitative research is designed to reveal the meaning that informs the action or outcomes that are typically measured by quantitative research. So qualitative researchers investigate meanings, interpretations, symbols, and the processes and relations of social life.

What this type of research produces is descriptive data that the researcher must then interpret using rigorous and systematic methods of transcribing, coding, and analysis of trends and themes.

Because its focus is everyday life and people's experiences, qualitative research lends itself well to creating new theories using the inductive method , which can then be tested with further research.

Qualitative researchers use their own eyes, ears, and intelligence to collect in-depth perceptions and descriptions of targeted populations, places, and events.

Their findings are collected through a variety of methods, and often a researcher will use at least two or several of the following while conducting a qualitative study:

Direct observation : With direct observation, a researcher studies people as they go about their daily lives without participating or interfering. This type of research is often unknown to those under study, and as such, must be conducted in public settings where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, a researcher might observe the ways in which strangers interact in public as they gather to watch a street performer.
Open-ended surveys : While many surveys are designed to generate quantitative data, many are also designed with open-ended questions that allow for the generation and analysis of qualitative data. For example, a survey might be used to investigate not just which political candidates voters chose, but why they chose them, in their own words.
Focus group : In a focus group, a researcher engages a small group of participants in a conversation designed to generate data relevant to the research question. Focus groups can contain anywhere from 5 to 15 participants. Social scientists often use them in studies that examine an event or trend that occurs within a specific community. They are common in market research, too.
In-depth interviews : Researchers conduct in-depth interviews by speaking with participants in a one-on-one setting. Sometimes a researcher approaches the interview with a predetermined list of questions or topics for discussion but allows the conversation to evolve based on how the participant responds. Other times, the researcher has identified certain topics of interest but does not have a formal guide for the conversation, but allows the participant to guide it.
Oral history : The oral history method is used to create a historical account of an event, group, or community, and typically involves a series of in-depth interviews conducted with one or multiple participants over an extended period.
Participant observation : This method is similar to observation, however with this one, the researcher also participates in the action or events to not only observe others but to gain the first-hand experience in the setting.
Ethnographic observation : Ethnographic observation is the most intensive and in-depth observational method. Originating in anthropology, with this method, a researcher fully immerses themselves into the research setting and lives among the participants as one of them for anywhere from months to years. By doing this, the researcher attempts to experience day-to-day existence from the viewpoints of those studied to develop in-depth and long-term accounts of the community, events, or trends under observation.
Content analysis : This method is used by sociologists to analyze social life by interpreting words and images from documents, film, art, music, and other cultural products and media. The researchers look at how the words and images are used, and the context in which they are used to draw inferences about the underlying culture. Content analysis of digital material, especially that generated by social media users, has become a popular technique within the social sciences.

While much of the data generated by qualitative research is coded and analyzed using just the researcher's eyes and brain, the use of computer software to do these processes is increasingly popular within the social sciences.

Such software analysis works well when the data is too large for humans to handle, though the lack of a human interpreter is a common criticism of the use of computer software.

Pros and Cons

Qualitative research has both benefits and drawbacks.

On the plus side, it creates an in-depth understanding of the attitudes, behaviors, interactions, events, and social processes that comprise everyday life. In doing so, it helps social scientists understand how everyday life is influenced by society-wide things like social structure , social order , and all kinds of social forces.

This set of methods also has the benefit of being flexible and easily adaptable to changes in the research environment and can be conducted with minimal cost in many cases.

Among the downsides of qualitative research is that its scope is fairly limited so its findings are not always widely able to be generalized.

Researchers also have to use caution with these methods to ensure that they do not influence the data in ways that significantly change it and that they do not bring undue personal bias to their interpretation of the findings.

Fortunately, qualitative researchers receive rigorous training designed to eliminate or reduce these types of research bias.

How to Conduct a Sociology Research Interview
What Is Participant Observation Research?
Immersion Definition: Cultural, Language, and Virtual
Definition and Overview of Grounded Theory
The Differences Between Indexes and Scales
Pros and Cons of Secondary Data Analysis
Social Surveys: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Telephone Polls
The Different Types of Sampling Designs in Sociology
Principal Components and Factor Analysis
Sociology Explains Why Some People Cheat on Their Spouses
Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning
Data Sources For Sociological Research
How to Construct an Index for Research
A Review of Software Tools for Quantitative Data Analysis
Constructing a Deductive Theory
Scales Used in Social Science Research

Research Methods in Sociology – An Introduction

Table of Contents

Last Updated on May 4, 2023 by Karl Thompson

An introduction to research methods in Sociology covering quantitative, qualitative, primary and secondary data and defining the basic types of research method including social surveys, experiments, interviews, participant observation, ethnography and longitudinal studies.

Why do social research?

The simple answer is that without it, our knowledge of the social world is limited to our immediate and limited life-experiences. Without some kind of systematic research, we cannot know the answer to even basic questions such as how many people live in the United Kingdom, let alone the answers to more complex questions about why working class children get worse results at school or why the crime rate has been falling every year since 1995.

So the most basic reason for doing social research is to describe the social world around us: To find out what people think and feel about social issues and how these thoughts and feelings vary across social groups and regions. Without research, you simply do not know with any degree of certainty, what is going on in the world.

Subjective and Objective Knowledge in Social Research

Research in Sociology is usually carefully planned, and conducted using well established procedures to ensure that knowledge is objective – where the information gathered reflects what is really ‘out there’ in the social, world rather than ‘subjective’ – where it only reflects the narrow opinions of the researchers. The careful, systematic and rigorous use of research methods is what makes sociological knowledge ‘objective’ rather than ‘subjective’.

Subjective knowledge – is knowledge based purely on the opinions of the individual, reflecting their values and biases, their point of view

While most Sociologists believe that we should strive to make our data collection as objective as possible, there are some Sociologists (known as Phenomenologists) who argue that it is not actually possible to collect data which is purely objective – The researcher’s opinions always get in the way of what data is collected and filtered for publication.

Sources and types of data

Qualitative data refers to information that appears in written, visual or audio form, such as transcripts of interviews, newspapers and web sites. (It is possible to analyse qualitative data and display features of it numerically!)

Primary data is data collected first hand by the researcher herself. If a sociologist is conducting her own unique sociological research, she will normally have specific research questions she wants answered and thus tailor her research methods to get the data she wants. The main methods sociologists use to generate primary data include social surveys (normally using questionnaire), interviews, experiments and observations.

Four main primary research methods

For the purposes of A-level sociology there are four major primary research methods

Social Surveys

Social Surveys – are typically structured questionnaires designed to collect information from large numbers of people in standardised form.

Social Surveys are written in advance by the researcher and tend to to be pre-coded and have a limited number of closed-questions and they tend to focus on relatively simple topics. A good example is the UK National Census. Social Surveys can be administered (carried out) in a number of different ways – they might be self-completion (completed by the respondents themselves) or they might take the form of a structured interview on the high street, as is the case with some market research.

Experiments

Experiments typically start off with a hypothesis – a theory or explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, and will typically take the form of a testable statement about the effect which one or more independent variables will have on the dependent variable. A good experiment will be designed in such a way that objective cause and effect relationships can be established, so that the original hypothesis can verified, or rejected and modified.

Structured Interviews are basically social surveys which are read out by the researcher – they use pre-set, standardised, typically closed questions. The aim of structured interviews is to produce quantitative data.

Participant Observation

Participant Observation – involves the researcher joining a group of people, taking an active part in their day to day lives as a member of that group and making in-depth recordings of what she sees.

Ethnographies and Case Studies

Case Studies involves researching a single case or example of something using multiple methods – for example researching one school or factory. An ethnography is simply a very in-depth case study.

Longitudinal Studies

Secondary research methods.

Secondary qualitative data is data which already exists in written or audiovisual form and include news media, the entire qualitative content of the internent (so blogs and social media data), and more old-school data sources such as diaries, autobiographies and letters.

my main research methods page contains links to all of my posts on research methods.

Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle

Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Table of Contents

Qualitative Research

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

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

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative Research Methods are as follows:

One-to-One Interview

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

Focus Groups

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

Ethnographic Studies

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

Text Analysis

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

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

Process of Observation

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

Record Keeping

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

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

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

Qualitative Research Analysis Methods

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

Thematic Analysis

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

Content Analysis

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

Discourse Analysis

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

Grounded Theory Analysis

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

Narrative Analysis

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

Phenomenological Analysis

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

Comparative Analysis

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

Applications of Qualitative Research

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

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

How to Conduct Qualitative Research

Here are some general steps for conducting qualitative research:

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

Examples of Qualitative Research

Here are some real-time examples of qualitative research:

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

Purpose of Qualitative Research

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

Qualitative research can serve multiple purposes, including:

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

When to use Qualitative Research

Here are some situations where qualitative research may be appropriate:

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

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is characterized by several key features, including:

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

Advantages of Qualitative Research

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

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

Limitations of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research also has some limitations, including:

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

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Ethnographic Research -Types, Methods and Guide

Research Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Transformative Design – Methods, Types, Guide

Triangulation in Research – Types, Methods and...

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9.1 Qualitative research: What is it and when should it be used?

Learning objectives.

Define qualitative research
Explain the differences between qualitative and quantitative research
Identify the benefits and challenges of qualitative research

Qualitative versus quantitative research methods refers to data-oriented considerations about the type of data to collected and how they are analyzed. Qualitative research relies mostly on non-numeric data, such as interviews and observations to understand their meaning, in contrast to quantitative research which employs numeric data such as scores and metrics. Hence, qualitative research is not amenable to statistical procedures, but is coded using techniques like content analysis. Sometimes, coded qualitative data are tabulated quantitatively as frequencies of codes, but this data is not statistically analyzed. Qualitative research has its roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics, and has been available since the early 19th century, long before quantitative statistical techniques were employed.

Distinctions from Quantitative Research

In qualitative research, the role of the researcher receives critical attention. In some methods such as ethnography, action research, and participant observation, the researcher is considered part of the social phenomenon, and her specific role and involvement in the research process must be made clear during data analysis. In other methods, such as case research, the researcher must take a “neutral” or unbiased stance during the data collection and analysis processes, and ensure that her personal biases or preconceptions does not taint the nature of subjective inferences derived from qualitative research.

Analysis in qualitative research is holistic and contextual, rather than being reductionist and isolationist. Qualitative interpretations tend to focus on language, signs, and meanings from the perspective of the participants involved in the social phenomenon, in contrast to statistical techniques that are employed heavily in positivist research. Rigor in qualitative research is viewed in terms of systematic and transparent approaches for data collection and analysis rather than statistical benchmarks for construct validity or significance testing.

Lastly, data collection and analysis can proceed simultaneously and iteratively in qualitative research. For instance, the researcher may conduct an interview and code it before proceeding to the next interview. Simultaneous analysis helps the researcher correct potential flaws in the interview protocol or adjust it to capture the phenomenon of interest better. The researcher may even change her original research question if she realizes that her original research questions are unlikely to generate new or useful insights. This is a valuable but often understated benefit of qualitative research, and is not available in quantitative research, where the research project cannot be modified or changed once the data collection has started without redoing the entire project from the start.

Benefits and Challenges of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has several unique advantages. First, it is well-suited for exploring hidden reasons behind complex, interrelated, or multifaceted social processes, such as inter-firm relationships or inter-office politics, where quantitative evidence may be biased, inaccurate, or otherwise difficult to obtain. Second, it is often helpful for theory construction in areas with no or insufficient pre-existing theory. Third, qualitative research is also appropriate for studying context-specific, unique, or idiosyncratic events or processes. Fourth, it can help uncover interesting and relevant research questions and issues for follow-up research.

At the same time, qualitative research also has its own set of challenges. First, this type of research tends to be more time and resource intensive than quantitative research in data collection and analytic efforts. Too little data can lead to false or premature assumptions, while too much data may not be effectively processed by the researcher. Second, qualitative research requires well-trained researchers who are capable of seeing and interpreting complex social phenomenon from the perspectives of the embedded participants and reconciling the diverse perspectives of these participants, without injecting their personal biases or preconceptions into their inferences. Third, all participants or data sources may not be equally credible, unbiased, or knowledgeable about the phenomenon of interest, or may have undisclosed political agendas, which may lead to misleading or false impressions. Inadequate trust between participants and researcher may hinder full and honest self-representation by participants, and such trust building takes time. It is the job of the qualitative researcher to “see through the smoke” (hidden or biased agendas) and understand the true nature of the problem. Finally, given the heavily contextualized nature of inferences drawn from qualitative research, such inferences do not lend themselves well to replicability or generalizability.

Key Takeaways

Qualitative research examines words and other non-numeric media
Analysis in qualitative research is holistic and contextual
Qualitative research offers unique benefits, while facing challenges to generalizability and replicability
Qualitative methods – examine words or other media to understand their meaning

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Qualitative Methods

Madeline Anderson

Matthew Clair

Tomás R. Jiménez

Barbara Kiviat

Forrest Stuart

Let your curiosity lead the way:

Apply Today

Arts & Sciences
Graduate Studies in A&S

Qualitative Methods

Sociology 5060.

“Qualitative Research” Is a Moving Target

Review Essay
Published: 15 November 2021
Volume 44 , pages 583–590, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

Paul Lichterman 1

1320 Accesses

2 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The term “qualitative” is best considered a disciplinary convenience, not a careful index of research practice. Viewed closely and historically, qualitative research is a shifting, expanding collection of techniques and logics of inquiry, though for curricular reasons we often define that collection by techniques. An effort to discern a single, shared definition of “qualitative” distracts us from the more central questions: What are qualitative researchers trying to achieve, and how do we know if they are doing that well? Qualitative research aims to access meanings that orient actors. Researchers have several historically evolving, mutually reinforcing standards to guide our efforts to access and conceptualize actors’ meanings. These standards currently are interpretive validity, groundedness, and theoretical imagination. When we switch from asking what is qualitative to inquiring after the aims and standards of interpretive research, we find that communities of inquiry continue cultivating logics and observation techniques, and re-visioning standards for deploying them as we investigate meaningful action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

On Qualifying Qualitative Research: Emerging Perspectives and the “Deer” (Descriptive, Exploratory, Evolutionary, Repeat) Paradigm

Unsettling definitions of qualitative research.

The Researcher as an Instrument

This applies even to projects that start with strong theoretical commitments; they aim to use puzzles or anomalies that the researcher discovers, in order to thicken or improve rather than verify theory.

Aspers, Patrik, and Ugo Corte. 2019. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology 42: 139–160.

Article Google Scholar

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett C. Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in white . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Blair-Loy, Mary. 2004. Competing devotions . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2009. A neighborhood that never changes: Gentrification, social preservation and the search for authenticity . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Book Google Scholar

Burawoy, Michael. 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16 (1): 4–33.

Clarke, Adele, and Susan Star. 2008. The social worlds framework: A theory/methods package. In The handbook of science and technology studies , 3rd ed., eds. Edward Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 113–137. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory . Chicago: Aldine.

Hine, Christine. 2011. Virtual ethnography. Sage Research Methods . https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020277 . Accessed 24 Sept 2021.

Hochschild, Arlie. 1989. The second shift . New York: Viking.

Katz, Jack. 2001. From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part I). Ethnography 2 (4): 443–473.

Katz, Jack. 2002. From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part II). Ethnography 3 (1): 63–90.

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

Lareau, Annette. 1989. Home advantage . Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.

Lichterman, Paul. 1996. The search for political community . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lichterman, Paul. 2015. A more dialogical community of inquiry, or, dredging the collective collegial subconscious. Paper presented at Pragmatism and Sociology conference, University of Chicago, August.

Lichterman, Paul. 2017. Communicating theory now. Perspectives: Newsletter of the ASA Theory Section 39 (2): 4–7.

Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed. 2015. Theory and contrastive explanation in ethnography. Sociological Methods and Research 44 (2015): 585–635.

Platt, Jennifer. 1983. The development of the “participant observation” method in sociology: Origin myth and history. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 19 (4): 379–393.

Reed, Isaac, and Paul Lichterman. Forthcoming. Pragmatist comparative-historical sociology. In The new pragmatist sociology: Inquiry, agency and democracy , eds. Isaac Reed, Christopher Winship, and Neil Gross. New York: Columbia University Press.

Strauss, Anselm. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swedberg, Richard. 2014. The art of social theory . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Swedberg, Richard. 2021. What is a method? On the different uses of the term method in sociology. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 22 (1): 108–128.

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

Willis, Paul. 1977. Learning to labor . New York: Columbia University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to students in my qualitative methodology seminars for trying out these ideas with me and helping me improve them. The inevitable shortcomings are my doing. Thanks, too, to Richard Swedberg and the Editor for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, University of Southern California, 851 Downey Way, HSH 314, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA

Paul Lichterman

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Lichterman .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lichterman, P. “Qualitative Research” Is a Moving Target. Qual Sociol 44 , 583–590 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09499-8

Download citation

Accepted : 09 October 2021

Published : 15 November 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09499-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Interpretation; Theoretical imagination; Logic of inquiry; Qualitative research
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part 4: Using qualitative methods

18. Qualitative data collection

Chapter outline.

Ethical responsibility and cultural respect (5 minute read)
Critical considerations (3 minute read)
Preparations for the data gathering process (6 minute read)
Interviews (20 minute read)
Focus groups (15 minute read)
Observations (6 minute read)
Documents and other artifacts (13 minute read)

Content warning: examples in this chapter contain references to multiple demands on students’ time, loss of employment, sexual assault, trauma-informed care, inpatient psychiatric services, immigration, and the Holocaust.

In this chapter we will explore information to help you plan for and organize your strategy to gather your qualitative data. You will face a number of decisions as you plan this section of your proposal. Gathering qualitative data comes with important ethical and cultural responsibilities. Furthermore, qualitative research can be a powerful tool, but we need to be thoughtful as to how it will be used, as it can as easily become a tool of oppression as one of empowerment. Below are some considerations to help you reflect on some of these dynamics as you plan your study. The first sections apply to every type of qualitative research. Then, we discuss specific strategies to choose from as you plan your qualitative study.

18.1 Ethical responsibility and cultural respect

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

Explain the special considerations researchers should keep in mind as they design qualitative studies and collect qualitative data
Determine steps that can be taken to protect participants and exhibit cultural respect during qualitative data collection

Because qualitative data collection so often involves direct contact with human participants and requesting them to share detailed and potentially personally sensitive information with us as researchers, we need to be especially sensitive to ethical considerations. It is a process that requires forethought, planning, and mindful attention throughout. Below are some ethical considerations to help guide you in this activity.

Special limitations to anonymity, confidentiality and ability to remove or withdraw data

Because with qualitative research we are often meeting with people in person to gather data, either from interviews , focus groups , or observations , we clearly can’t guarantee them anonymity . This makes it all the more important to consider what you will do to protect the confidentiality of your participants. This may involve using steps like:

Using pseudonyms or assigned study identification codes rather than names on study materials
Stripping all potentially identifying information from transcripts
Keeping signed informed consent forms separate from other data so the two can’t be linked
Ensuring that when data is not being used it is appropriately stored and locked so that others outside the research team don’t have access to it
Ensuring that when data is being used it is not in a space (in person or virtual) where people outside the research team can view it
Making sure that all members of your research team have been approved by your IRB
Being very clear in your informed consent who will have access to data and for what purposes

Additionally, at times we will write into our informed consent that participants may withdraw from a study at any time. When a person expresses a desire to withdraw, we remove their data from the study. However, let’s say we conducted interviews and identified a theme that was present in their interview, but was also in a number of other interviews. Their ideas would still be represented in our findings, but we would make sure not to use any quotes or unique contributions from that individual. Also, if a person participates in a focus group, they are part of an interactive dialogue and the discussion is often connected to ideas shared by others as the conversation evolves, making it very hard to completely remove their data. Again, we would respect their wishes by not using any of their direct words, but their presence and contributions shaped the discussion in ways that we won’t be able to excise. It is best to be upfront about this as you are seeking informed consent.

What steps will you be taking to protect the qualitative data that is shared with you?

Prepare with competence, enter with humility

When we ask people to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences with us, we need to do so in a way that demonstrates respect and authenticity . This means that we approach participants in a professional manner that reflects both competence as a researcher and that illustrates we have done some preparation to learn about the population ahead of time (that we are not “coming in cold”). Activities that can help to demonstrate this are:

Speaking with knowledgeable community members regarding the topic, our research design, and important aspects of the community (contemporary and historical) before beginning our data collection)
Examining previous research and other sources of information regarding the group/community we are interested in work with, or if not available, groups/communities that may be similar
Using data from the first two bullet points, we design our data collection in a way that is culturally sensitive (e.g. where we ask people to provide data, what tools we use, our wording)
Preparing research materials (e.g. informed consent forms, recruitment materials, informational sheets) that are accessible and understandable for participants
Providing information and education about research in general and our research topic specifically

This needs to be tempered with humility. Participants grant us the privilege of allowing us to witness some piece of their life. We need to have humility in knowing that we can never fully understand their experiences because we are not them. In a real sense, we are the learners and they are the teachers. Despite us doing the pre-work discussed above to become more competent in our approach, humility means we will ask the participant directly what is acceptable in respect to our data collection. I believe that when taking a culturally humble approach that we should take at least a little bit of time to understand what research means to the participant and what this particular topic means to the them, again, by asking them directly.

Key Takeaways

Qualitative data collection involves special considerations to help ensure the privacy, confidentiality, or anonymity of participants because of the the often intimate and detailed information that we are collecting as qualitative researchers.
Preparing for qualitative data collection requires that we educate ourselves as researchers in advance about the population we will be working with to guide and develop our data collection plan. Furthermore, from the standpoint of cultural humility, we don’t assume that these preparations are adequate. We need to verify with participants what is culturally acceptable to them as individuals.
As you prepare for data collection planning, what actions do you plan to take to demonstrate preparations for cultural sensitivity and cultural humility?

18.2 Critical considerations

Assess factors that may impact community members’ perceptions of researchers and their intentions
Identify opportunities to support greater reciprocity in researcher-participant relationships (especially as it relates to your proposal)

What/whose interests are represented?

Data is a resource that participants own that they choose to share with us. Think about it: When a smartphone app or computer program wants your personal data, you’re usually asked to read a privacy statement and agree to certain terms. Companies are legally required to notify you about their intentions to use the data you may share. And many companies certainly recognize that your data is a valuable resource and seek it out. As researchers, we have similar responsibilities, but with higher ethical standards.

If we are going to ask participants to share this resource, we need to consider why we need it. Clearly, we are invested in this research for some reason, otherwise we wouldn’t be spending our time doing it. Being upfront and genuine with our participants about why this topic is important to us and what we hope comes out of this research is a good first step. We also need to describe to other stakeholders (such as funders or sponsors) who might be involved why we are interested in it. In addition, it is helpful to consider what this research might represent to our participants.

They may be unsure what to think about the research—This especially may be true if they have had limited exposure to research and/or academia.
They might be nervous or apprehensive that it could have consequences, either for them individually or for their community
They might be excited to share their story and may feel as though they are contributing to something larger or some beneficial change

Considering these factors can help us to be more sensitive as we prepare to enter the field for data collection.

Think about your study. Put yourself in the role of research participant.

What information would you want to know?

About research in general
About the researcher
About the research topic

How reciprocal is the arrangement?

Building off the preceding discussion about what research might mean to participants, it is also important to consider the reciprocity in the researcher – participant relationship. We know that we are benefiting from the exchange – we are getting data, research findings, research products and any other advantages or opportunities that might be attached to these. However, the benefits are not always as clear on the participant side of this relationship. Sometimes we are able to provide incentives to honor a participant’s time and contribution to a project, but these are often relatively limited. Participants may also intrinsically value making a contribution to a research project that can eventually help to change or build awareness around something that is important to them, but these are often distant and intangible benefits. While we may not be able to change the fact that we may benefit more from this exchange than our participants, it is important for us to acknowledge this and to consider how this can affect the power differential. We may be asking for a lot, with relatively little to offer in return. This is in contrast to participatory research approaches (which have been discussed elsewhere), in which there is much more of an intentional effort to more equally distribute the benefits of these relationships.

As a means of developing empathy as a researcher, it is worth considering what the significance or meaning of research is to the populations we are interested in working with. What do we (as researchers) and our projects represent to community members?
As critical researchers, we need to be considered with the power differences that often exist as we conduct research, especially in the act of asking for data from participants. The request is often lop-sided, with us benefiting considerably more than the participant.

18.3 Preparations for the data gathering process

Explain important influences to account for in qualitative data gathering
Organize and document preparatory steps to plan data gathering activities for your qualitative proposal

As you may have guessed from our discussion regarding qualitative research planning and sampling, you have a number of options available for qualitative data gathering, and consequently, a number of choices to make. Your decisions should be driven by your research question and research design, including the resources that are at your disposal for conducting your study. Remember, qualitative research is a labor-intensive venture. While it may not require lots of fancy equipment, it requires a significant investment of people’s time and potentially other resources (e.g. space, incentives for participants, transportation). Each source of data (interviews, focus groups, observations, other artifacts), will require separate planning as you approach data gathering.

Our impact on the data gathering process

In the last chapter, you were introduced to the tool of reflexive journaling as a means of encouraging you to reflect on and document your role in the research process. Since qualitative researchers generally play a very active and involved role in the data gathering process (e.g. conducting interviews, facilitating focus groups, selecting artifacts), we need to consider ways to capture our influence on this part of the qualitative process. Let’s say you are conducting interviews. As you head into the interview, you might be bringing in thoughts about a previous interview, a conversation you just had with your research professor, or worries about finishing all your assignments by the end of the semester! During the interview, you are likely to be surprised by some things that are said or some parts may evoke strong emotions. These responses may lead you to consider pursuing a slightly different line of questioning, and potentially highlighting or de-emphasizing certain aspects. Understanding and being aware of your personal reactions during the data collection process is very important. As part of your design and planning, you may specify that you will reflexively journal before and after each interview in an attempt to capture pre- and post-interview thoughts and feelings. This can help us to consider how we influence and are influenced by the research process. Towards the end of this chapter, after we have had a chance to talk about some of these data gathering strategies, there is a reflexive journal prompt to help you consider how to begin to reflect on the way you as a researcher might impact your work and how you work might impact you.

Decision Point

How will you account for your role in the research process?

This may be your reflexive journal or you may have other thoughts about how you can account for this.
Whatever you choose, how will you develop a routine/habit around this to ensure that you are regularly implementing this?

Reflexive Journal Entry Prompt

This is going to be a bit meta, but for this prompt, I want you reflect on the reflecting you are doing for your reflexive journaling.

Do you see this as a potentially helpful tool for tracking your influence and reactions? What appeals to you? What puts you off?
If so, how did you develop this mindset?
If not, how can you strengthen this skill?

When are we done

Finally, as you plan for your data collection you need to consider when to stop. As suggested previously in our discussion on sampling, the concept of saturation is important here. As a reminder, saturation is the point at which no new ideas or concepts are being presented as you continue to collect new pieces of data. Again, as qualitative researchers, we are often collecting and analyzing our data simultaneously. This is what enables us to continue screening for the point of saturation. Of course, not all studies utilize the point of saturation as their determining factor for the amount of data they will collect. This may be predetermined by other factors, such as restricted access or other limitations to the scope of the investigation. While there is no hard and fast rule for the quantity of data you gather, the quality is important; you want to be comprehensive, consistent, and systematic in your approach.

Next, we will discuss some of the different approaches to gathering qualitative data. I’m going to start out with Table 18.1 that allows us to compare these different approaches, providing you with a general framework that will allow us to dive a bit deeper into each one. After you finish reading this chapter, it might be helpful to come back to this table as you continue with your proposal planning.

Table 18.1 Qualitative data gathering strategies comparison

	Strengths	Challenges
	Strengths	Challenges
	Strengths	Challenges
	Strengths	Challenges

As you are preparing to initiate data collection, make sure that you have a plan for how you will capture and document your influence on the process. Reflexive journaling can be a useful tool to accomplish this.
Be sure to take some time to think about when you will end your data collection. Make this an intentional, justified decisions, rather than a haphazard one.

18.4 Interviews

Identify key considerations when planning to use interviewing as a strategy for qualitative data gathering, including preparations, tools, and skills to support it
Assess whether interviewing is an effective approach to gather data for your qualitative research proposal

A common form of qualitative data gathering involves conducting interviews . Interviews offer researchers a way to gather data directly from participants by asking them to share their thoughts on a range of questions related to a research topic. Interviews are generally conducted individually, although occasionally couples (or other dyads , which consist of a combination of two people) may be interviewed. Interviews are a particularly good strategy for capturing unique perspectives and exploring experiences in detail. People may have a host of responses to the request to be interviewed, ranging from flat out rejection to excitement at the opportunity to share their story. As you plan to conduct your interviews you will need to decide on your delivery method, how you will capture the data, you will construct your interview guide , and hone your research interviewing skills.

Delivery method

As technology has advanced, so too have our options for conducting interviews. While in-person interviews are generally still the mainstay of the qualitative researcher, phone or video-based interviews have expanded the reach of many studies, allowing us to gain access to participants across vast distances with relatively few resources. Interviewing in-person allows you to capture important non-verbal and contextual information that will likely be limited if you choose to conduct your interview via phone or video. For instance, if we conduct an interview by phone, we miss the opportunity to see how our participant interacts with their surroundings and we can’t see if their arms are crossed or their foot is fidgety. This may indicate that a certain topic might make them particularly uncomfortable. Alternatively, we may pose a question that makes a smile come across their face. If we are interviewing in person, we can ask a follow-up question noting the smile as a change in their expression, however, it’s hard to hear a smile over the phone! Additionally, there is something to be said for the ability to make a personal connection with your interviewee that may help them to engage more easily in the interview process. This personal connection can be challenging over the phone or mediated by technology. As an example, I often offer to my students that we can meet for “virtual” office hours using Zoom if it is hard for them to get to campus. However, they will often prefer to come to campus, despite the inconvenience because they would prefer to avoid the technology.

Regardless of which method you select, make sure you are well prepared. If you are meeting in person, know where you are going and allow plenty of time to get there. Remember, you are asking someone to give up their time to speak with you, and time is precious! When determining where you will meet for your interview, you may choose to meet at your office, their home, or a neutral setting in the community. If meeting somewhere in the community, do consider that you want to choose a place where you can reasonably assure the participant’s privacy and confidentiality as they are speaking with you. In most instances, I try to ask participants where they would feel most comfortable meeting. If you are speaking over phone or video, make sure to test your equipment ahead of time so that you are comfortable using it, and make sure that both you and the participant have access to a private space as you are speaking. If participants have minor children, plan ahead for whether the children should stay in the same space as the interview. If not, you may need to arrange child care or at least discuss child care with participants in advance. We also want to be mindful of how we are situated during an interview, ideally minimizing any power imbalances. This may be especially important when meeting in an office, making sure to sit across from our participants rather than behind a desk.

Capturing the data

You will also need to consider how you plan to physically capture your data. Some researchers record their interviews, using either a smartphone or a digital recording device. Recording the exchange allows you to have a verbatim record, which can allow the researcher to more fully participate in the interview, instead of worrying about capturing everything in writing. However, if there is a problem with recording – either the quality of the recording or some other equipment malfunction, the researcher can be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Additionally, using a recording device may be perceived as a barrier between the researcher and the participant, as the participant may not feel comfortable being recorded. If you do plan to record, you should always ask permission first and announce clearly when you are starting and stopping the recording. If you will use recording equipment, be sure to test it carefully in advance, and bring backup batteries/phone charger with you.

The alternative to recording is taking field notes. Field notes consist of a written record of the interview, completed during the interview. You may elect to take field notes even if you are recording the interview, and most people do. This allows us to capture main ideas that stand out to us as researchers, nonverbal information that won’t show up in a recording, and some of our own reactions as the interview is being conducted. These field notes become invaluable if you have a problem with your recording. Even if you don’t, they provide helpful information as you interpret the data you do have in your transcript (the typed version of your recording).

If you are not recording and are relying completely on your notes, it is important to know that you are not going to capture every word and that you shouldn’t try. You want to plan in advance how you will structure your notes so that they make sense to you and are easy to follow. Try to capture all main ideas, important quotes that stand out, and whenever possible, use the participant’s own words. We need to recognize that when we paraphrase what the person is stating, we are introducing our ‘spin’ on it – their ideas go through our filter. We likely can’t avoid some of this, but we do want to minimize it as much as possible. Part of how we do this when we are relying on field notes is to take our interview notes and create expanded field notes , ideally within 24 hours of the interview. The longer you wait to expand your field notes, the less reliable they become, as our memory fades quickly! Much like they sound, expanded field notes take our jottings from the interview and expand them, providing more detail regarding the context or meaning of the statements that were captured. Expanded field notes may also contain questions, comments, or reactions that we, as the researcher, may have had to the data, which are usually kept in the margins, rather than in the body of the notes.

Figure 18.1 Example of field notes and expanded field notes

Below are a few resources to learn more about taking quality field notes. Along with the reading, practice, practice, practice!

Resources to learn more about capturing your Field Notes:

Deggs, D., & Hernandez, F. (2018). Enhancing the value of qualitative field notes through purposeful reflection .

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2008). Qualitative guidelines project: Fieldnotes .

University of Southern California Libraries. (2019). Research guides: Organizing your social sciences research paper, writing field notes .

Wolfinger, N. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies.

Interview guide

The questions that you ask during your interview will be outlined in a tool called an interview guide . Along with your interview questions, your interview guide will also often contain a brief introduction reminding the participant of the topics that will be covered in the interview and any other instructions you want to provide them (note: much of this will simply serve as a reminder of what you already went over in your informed consent, but it is good practice to remind them right before you get started as well). In addition, the guide often ends with a debriefing statement that thanks the participant for their contribution, inquires whether they have any questions or concerns, and provides contact and resource information as appropriate. Below is a brief interview guide for a study that I was involved with, in which we were interviewing alumni regarding their perceptions of advanced educational needs in the field of social work and specifically their thoughts about practice doctorate of social work (DSW) degrees/programs.

Figure 18.2 Example interview guide
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. As a reminder, we are conducting a study to examine your thoughts and perceptions about advanced educational needs in our field and specifically about social work practice doctorate degrees (DSW). We can stop at any time and your participation is completely voluntary. If you need anything explained more clearly as we are going through the questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Before we get started, I will ask you to complete a brief demographic survey. [pause while participant completes demographic survey] Do you have any questions before we get started? We are so grateful that you shared your thoughts with us. We will analyze what you shared with us, along with other participants to look for themes and commonalities to help us better understand advanced educational needs in our field and also to help us as we consider developing our own DSW degree at this institution As a reminder, if you have any questions, concerns or you would like to receive copy of the results of our findings, you can contact us at XXX.

Some interviews are prescribed or structured, with a rigid set of questions that are asked consistently each time, with little to no deviation. This is called a structured interview . More often however, we are dealing with semi-structured interviews , which provide a general framework for the questions that will be asked, but- contain more flexibility to pursue related topics that are brought up by participants. This often leads to researchers asking unplanned follow-up questions to help explore new ideas that are introduced by participants. Sometimes we also use unstructured interviews . These interview guides usually just contain a very open-ended talking prompt that we want participants to respond to. If we are using a highly structured interview guide, this suggests we are leaning toward deductive reasoning apporach—we have a pretty good idea based on existing evidence what we are looking for and what questions we want to ask to help us test our existing understanding. If we are using an unstructured guide, this suggests we are leaning toward an inductive reasoning approach—we start by trying to get people to elaborate extensively on open-ended questions to provide us with data that we will use to develop our understanding of this topic.

Continuum of interview structure with deductive science on one side with structured interviews, semi-structured interviews in the center, and unstructured interviews on the other end with inductive science

An important concept related to the contents of your interview guide is the idea of emergent design . With qualitative research we often treat our interview guide as dynamic, meaning that as new ideas are brought up, we may integrate these new questions into our interview guide for future interviews. This reflects emergent design, as our interview guide shifts to accommodate our emerging understanding of the research topic as we are gathering data. If you do plan to use an emergent design approach in your interviews, it is important to acknowledge this in your IRB application. When you submit your application, you will need to provide the IRB with your interview guide so that they have an idea of the questions you will be discussing with participants. While using an emergent approach to some of your questions is generally acceptable (and even expected), these questions still should be clearly relevant and related to what was presented in your IRB application. If you find that you begin diverging into new areas that are substantively different from this, you should consider submitting an IRB addendum that reflects the changes, and it may be a good idea to consult with your IRB to see if this is necessary.

Designing interview questions and probes

Making up questions, it sounds easy right? Little kids are running around asking questions all the time! However, what you quickly find when conducting research is that it takes skills, ingenuity and practice to craft good interview questions. If you are conducting an unstructured interview, you will generally have fewer questions and they will be quite broad. Depending on your topic, you might ask questions like:

Tell me about a time…
What was it like to…
What should people understand about…
What does it mean to…

If your interview is more structured, your questions will be a bit more focused, but with qualitative interviewing, we are still generally trying to get people to open up about their experiences with something, so you will want to design questions that will help them to do this. Probes can be important tools to help us accomplish this. You can think of probes as brief follow-ups that are attached to a particular question that will help you explore a topic a bit further. We usually develop probes either through existing literature or knowledge on a topic, or we might add probes to our interview guide as we begin data collection based on what previous participants tell us. As an example, I’m very interested in research on the concept of wellness. I know that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has adopted a heuristic tool, The Wheel of Wellness , that outlines eight dimensions of wellness based on research by Swarbrick (2006). [1] When interviewing participants with the broad, unstructured question “What does wellness mean in your life?”, I might use these eight dimensions that are spokes of this wheel (i.e. emotional, spiritual, intellectual, physical, environmental, financial, occupational, and social) as probes to explore if/how these dimensions might be relevant in the lives of these participants. Probes suggest that we are anticipating that certain areas may be relevant to our question.

Here are a few general guidelines to consider when crafting your interview questions.

Make them approachable

We are usually relatively unfamiliar with our participants, at least on a personal level. This can make sitting down for an interview where we might be asking some deep questions a bit awkward and uncomfortable, at least at first. Because of this, we want to craft our questions in such a way that they are not off-putting, inadvertently accusatory or judgmental, or culturally insensitive. To accomplish this, we want to make sure we phrase questions in a neutral tone (e.g. “Tell me what that was like”, as opposed to, “That sounds horrible, what was that like”). To accomplish this, we can shift perspectives and think about what it would be like for us to be asked these questions (especially by a stranger). Pilot testing is especially important here. You should plan in time for this, both conducting pilot testing and incorporating feedback on questions. Pilot testing involves you taking your questions on a dry-run with a few people outside of your sample. You might consider testing these out with peers, colleagues, or friends to get their perspective. You might want to get feedback on:

Did the question make sense to them?
Did they know what information you were looking for and how to respond?
What was it like to be asked that question?
What suggestions do they have for rephrasing the question (if it wasn’t clear)?

Also, if we are conducting interviews on topics that may be particularly hard for people to talk about, we will likely want to start out with some questions that are easier to address prior to getting into the heavier topics.

Make them relatable

Unlike surveys, where researchers may not be able to explain the meaning of a question, with interviews, we are present to help clarify questions if needed. However, ideally, our questions are as clear as possible from the beginning. This means that we avoid jargon or technical terms, we anticipate areas that might be hard to explain and try to provide some examples or a metaphor that might help get the point across, and we do our homework to relay our questions in an appropriate cultural context. Like the discussion above, pilot testing our questions can be very helpful for ensuring the relatability of our questions, especially with community representatives. When pilot testing, do your best to test questions with a person/people from the same culture and educational level as the future participants. What sounds good in our heads might make little sense to our intended audience.

Make them individually distinct, but collectively comprehensive

Just like when we are developing survey questions, you don’t want to ask more than one question at the same time. This is confusing and hard to respond to for the participant, so make sure you are only asking about one idea in each question. However, when you are thinking about your list of questions, or about your interview guide collectively, ensure that you have comprehensively included all the ideas related to your topic. It’s extremely disheartening for a qualitative researcher that has concluded their interviews to realize there was a really important area that was not included in the guide. To avoid this, make sure to know the literature in your area well and talk to other people who study this area to get their perspective on what topics need to be included. Additional topics may come up when you pilot test your interview questions.

Interview skills

As social workers, we receive much training regarding interviewing and related interpersonal skills. Many of these skills certainly transfer to interviewing for research purposes, such as attending to both verbal and non-verbal communication, active listening, and clarification. However, it is also important to understand how a practice-related interview differs from a research interview.

The most important difference has to do with providing clarity around the purpose of the interview. For a practice-related interview, we are gathering information to help understand our client’s situation and better meet their needs. The interview is a means to provide quality services to our clients, and the emphasis is on the client and resources flowing to them. However, the research interview is ideologically much different. The interview is the means and the end. The purpose of the interview is to help answer the research question, but most often, there is little or limited direct benefit to the participant. The researcher is largely the beneficiary of the exchange, as the participant provides us with data. If the participant does become upset or is negatively affected by their participation, we may help facilitate their connection with appropriate support services to address this, such as counseling or crisis numbers (and indeed, this is our ethical obligation as a competent researcher). However, counseling and treatment is not our responsibility when conducting research interviews and we should be very careful not to confuse it as such. If we do act in this way, it creates the potential for a dual relationship with the interviewee (participant and client) and puts them in a vulnerable situation. Make sure you are clear what your role is in this encounter.

Along with recognizing the focus of your role, here is a checklist of general tips for qualitative interviewing skills:

Approach the interview in a relaxed, but professional manner
Be observant of verbal, nonverbal, and contextual information
Exhibit a non-judgmental stance
Explain information clearly and check for comprehension
Demonstrate respect for your participants and be polite
Utilize much more listening and much less talking
Check for understanding when you are unclear, rather than making assumptions
Know your materials and technology (e.g. informed consent, interview guide, recording equipment)
Be concise, clear and organized as you are taking notes
Have a structured approach for what you need to cover and redirect if the conversation is losing focus
Be flexible enough so that the interview does not become impersonal and disengaging due to rigidity of your agenda
Data collection through interviewing requires careful planning for both how we will conduct our interviews (e.g. in person, over the phone, online) and the nature of the interview questions themselves. An interview guide is an important document to develop in planning this.
Qualitative interviewing uses similar skills to clinical interviewing, but is markedly different. This difference is due in large part to the very different purpose of these two activities.

Let’s get some practice!

Thinking about your topic, if you were to use interviewing as an approach for data collection, identify 4 interview questions that you would consider asking about your topic. Make sure these are open-ended questions so that your participants can elaborate on them.

Interview question 1:
Interview question 2:
Interview question 3:
Interview question 4:

Now pilot these. Ask a peer to read these questions and think about trying to answer them. You aren’t interested in their actual answers, you want feedback about how these questions were.

Were they understandable and clear?
Were they potentially culturally insensitive or offensive in any way?
Are they something that it seems reasonable that someone could answer (especially with a researcher they likely don’t know previously)?
Are they asked in a way that are likely to get people to elaborate (rather than just give a one-word answer)?
What suggestions do they have to address all/any of these areas?

Based on your peer feedback, re-write your four questions incorporating their suggestions.

Revised interview question 1:
Revised interview question 2:
Revised interview question 3:
Revised interview question 4:

Resources for learning more about conducting Qualitative Interviews.

Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012) National Centre for Research Methods review paper: How many qualitative interviews is enough?

Clifford, S. Duke University Initiative on Survey Methodology at the Social Science Research Institute (n.d.). Tipsheet: Qualitative interviews.

Harvard University Sociology Dept. (n.d.). Strategies for qualitative interviews .

McGrath et al., (2018). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews .

Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts .

A few exemplars of studies employing Interview Data:

Ewart‐Boyle, S., Manktelow, R., & McColgan, M. (2015). Social work and the shadow father: Lessons for engaging fathers in Northern Ireland .

Flashman, S. H. (2015). Exploration into pre-clinicians’ views of the use of role-play games in group therapy with adolescents .

Irvin, K. (2016). Maintaining community roots: understanding gentrification through the eyes of long-standing African American residents in West Oakland .

18.5 Focus groups

Identify key considerations when planning to use focus groups as a strategy for qualitative data gathering, including preparations, tools, and skills to support it
Assess whether focus groups are an effective approach to gather data for your qualitative research proposal

Focus groups offer the opportunity to gather data from multiple participants at once. As you have likely learned in some of your practice coursework, groups can help facilitate an environment where people feel (more) comfortable sharing common experiences which can often allow them to delve deeper into topics than they may have individually. As people relate to what others in the group say, they often go on to share their responses to these new ideas – offering a collaborative synergy. Of course, similar to the research vs. clinical interview described above, the purpose of the focus group is much different than that of the therapeutic, psychoeducational, or support group. While other elements (e.g. information sharing, encouragement) may take place, the aim of the focus group must remain anchored in the collection of data and that should be made explicitly clear so participants have accurate expectations. As a cautionary note, the advantages discussed above should be the reason you choose to use a focus group to collect data. You should not choose to conduct a focus group solely out of convenience. Focus groups require a considerable amount of planning and skill to execute well, so it is not reasonable to think that just because a focus group allows you to collect data from multiple participants at once that it is an easier option for data gathering.

Group assembly

Assembling your focus group is an important part of your planning process. Generally speaking, focus groups shouldn’t exceed 10-12 participants. When thinking about size, there are a couple things to consider. On the lower end, you do want enough participants so that they don’t feel pressure to be constantly speaking. I f you only have a couple of focus group members, it loses most of the collective benefit of the focus group approach, as there are few people to generate and share ideas. On the higher end, you want to avoid having so many participants that not everyone gets to be heard and the group conversation becomes unwieldy and hard to manage.

As you are forming your group, you want to strike up a balance between heterogeneity (difference) and homogeneity (sameness) between your group members. If the group is too heterogeneous, then opinions may be so polarized that it is hard to have a productive conversation about the topic. People may not feel comfortable sharing their opinion or it may be difficult to gain a common understanding across the data. If the group is too homogeneous, then it may be hard to get much depth from the data. People may see the topic so similarly that we don’t gain much information about how differing perspectives think about the issue. You generally want your group composition to be different enough to be interesting and produce good conversation, but similar enough that members can relate to each other and have a cohesive conversation. Along these lines, you also need to consider whether or not your participants know each other. Do they have existing relationships? If they do know each other, we need to anticipate that there may be existing group dynamics. This may influence how people engage in discussion with us. On one hand, they may find it easy to share more freely. However, these dynamics may inhibit them from speaking their mind, as they might be concerned about repercussions for sharing within their social network.

As a final note on group composition, sometimes we make decisions on group members’ characteristics based on our topic. For instance, if we are asking questions about help-seeking and common experiences after (heterosexual) sexual assault, it may be challenging to host a mixed-gender group, where participants may feel triggered or guarded having members of the opposite gender present and therefore potentially less open to sharing. It is important to consider the population you are working with and the types of questions you are asking, as this can help you to be sensitive to their perceptions and facilitate the creation of a safe space. Other issues, such as race, age, levels of education, may require consideration as you think about your group composition.

Related to feelings of safety, the setting you select for your focus group is an important decision. Much like with interviews, we want participants to feel as comfortable and at-ease as possible, however, it is perhaps less common to use someone’s home for the purpose of a focus group because we are often bringing together people who may not know one another. As such, try to select a place that feels neutral (e.g. some people may not feel comfortable in a church or a courthouse), accessible, convenient, and that offers privacy for participants. If you are working with a particular group or community, there may be a space that is especially relevant or familiar for people that may work well for this purpose. A c ommunity gatekeeper or other knowledgeable community member can be an excellent resource in helping to identify where a good spa ce might be. Seating in a circle will help participants to share more easily. Focus group organizers often provide refreshments as an incentive and to make participants feel more comfortable. If you decide to provide refreshments, be sensitive to issues like common dietary restrictions and cultural preferences.

Roles of the researcher(s)

Ideally, you are conducting your focus group with a co-researcher. This is important because it allows you to divide up the tasks and makes the process more manageable. Most often, one of you will take on the main facilitator role, with responsibilities for providing information and instructions, introducing topics, asking follow-up questions and generally structuring the encounter. The other person takes on a note-taking/processing role. While not necessarily silent, they likely say very little during the focus group. Instead, they are focused on capturing the context of the encounter. This may include taking notes about what is said, how people respond or react, other details about the space and the overall exchange as a whole. They will also often be especially attentive to group dynamics and capturing these whenever possible. Along with this, if they see that certain group members are dominating or being left out of the conversation, they may help the facilitator to address or shift these dynamics so that the sharing is more equitable. Finally, if something arises where a participant becomes upset or there is an emergency where they need to leave the room, having a co-researcher allows one of you to remain with the group, while the other can attend to the person in distress. For consistency sake, you may want to maintain roles throughout data collection. If you do decide to alternate roles as you conduct multiple focus groups, it is important that you both conduct the respective roles as similarly as possible. Remember, research is about the systematic collection of data, so you want your data collection to follow a consistent process. Below is a chart that offers some tips for each of these roles.

Table 18.2 Main facilitator and observer roles for focus groups

Focus group guide and preparations

As in your preparation for an interview, you will want to spend considerable time developing your focus group guide and the questions it contains. Be sure the language you use in your questions is appropriate for the educational level of your participants; you will need to use vocabulary that is clear and not “jargon”. At the same time, you also want to avoid talking down to your participants. You will probably want to start with some easier, non-threatening questions to help break the ice for the group and help get folks comfortable talking and sharing their input. Be prepared to ask questions in a different way or follow up with probes to help prod the conversation along if a question falls flat or fails to elicit a dialogue. In addition, you will want to plan introductions, both to the study and to one another. Usually we stick to first names, and occasionally during introductions, participants will share how they are connected to the topic of the research. Just like in many practice-related groups, facilitators usually take time to review group norms and expectations before getting started with questions. Some common norms to discuss are:

Not talking over other participants
Being respectful of other participants’ contributions
All people are expected to participate in the conversation
Not pressuring people to respond to a question if they are uncomfortable
Using respectful language and avoiding derogatory, discriminatory or accusatory language or tone
Not using electronic devices and silencing cell-phones during the focus group
Allowing others ample time to contribute to the conversation and not dominating the discussion

Another expectation to address that is especially important to include is confidentiality . It is important to make clear to participants that what is shared in the group should be kept confidential and not discussed outside the context of the focus group. Additionally, it is important to let participants know that while the researchers ask all participants to protect the confidentiality of what is shared, they can’t guarantee that will be honored. Below figure 18.4 offers an example of a focus group guide template to help you think about how to structure this type of document.

Figure 18.4 Example focus group guide template

Capturing your data

Finally, as with interviews, you will need to plan how you will capture the data from your focus group(s). Again, you may choose to record the focus groups, take fie ld notes, or use a combination of both. There are some special considerations that apply to these choices when using a focus group, however. First, if recording, anticipate that it may be especially challenging when transcribing the recording to determine who said what. In addition, the quality of the recording can become a challenge. Despite requests for individuals to speak one at a time, inevitably there will be spots where there are multi ple people talking at once, especially with an animated group. Additionally, do test the recording devices, ideally in the space you will be using them. You want to make sure that it can pick up everyone’s voice, even if they are soft-spoken and seated a distance from the device. If you are relying solely on a recordi ng and there is a problem with it, it can be difficult to surmount the barriers this can pose . If this occurs with an interview, while not ideal, you can re-interview a person to replace the information, but re-creating a focus group can be a logistical night mare. When taking field notes , it is a good practice to make a quick seating chart at the beginning so you can make quick references for yourself of who is saying what (see Figure 18.5). Regardl ess of what system you use to stay organize d in taking these notes, make sure to have one that works for you. The conversations will likely happen more rapidly and will include multiple voices, so you will want to be prepared in advance.

Example seating chart for focus group with table in the center with a number of names around it with numbers assigned to each name.

Focus groups offer a valuable tool for qualitative data collection when the topic we are exploring might best be understood through a group discussion that helps participants verbally process and consider their experiences, thoughts, and opinions with others.
Details like focus group composition, roles of co-facilitators, and anticipation of group norms or guidelines require our attention as we prepare to host a focus group.

Reflexive journal prompt

How do you feel about conducting a focus group?

What about it is appealing
What about it seems challenging
Would you prefer to be the main facilitator or the observer (and why)?
What might make using a focus group a good choice for your specific research question?
What might make using a focus group a poor choice for your specific research question?

Resources to learn more about conducting Focus Groups.

Leung, F. H., & Savithiri, R. (2009). Spotlight on focus groups .

Duke, ModU (2016, October 19). Powerful concepts in social science: Preparing for focus groups, qualitative research methods

Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research .

Nyumba et al. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation .

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2008). Qualitative Guidelines Project: Focus groups.

A few exemplars of studies employing Focus Groups:

Foote, W. L. (2015). Social work field educators’ views on student specific learning needs .

Hoover, S. M., & Morrow, S. L. (2016). A qualitative study of feminist multicultural trainees’ social justice development .

Kortes-Miller, K., Wilson, K., & Stinchcombe, A. (2019). Care and LGBT aging in Canada: A focus group study on the educational gaps among care workers .

18.6 Observations

Identify key considerations when planning to use observations as a strategy for qualitative data gathering, including preparations, tools, and skills to support it
Assess whether observations are an effective approach to gather data for your qualitative research proposal

Observational data can also be very important to the qualitative researcher. As discussed in Chapter 17 , observations can provide important information about context, rea ctions, behaviors, exchanges, and expressions. The focus of observations may be indi viduals, i nteractions between people or within groups, environments or settings, or events like artistic expressions (e.g. plays, poetry readings, art shows), public forums (e.g. town hall meetings, community festivals), private forums (e.g. board meetings, family reunions), and finally, your reactions or responses as the researcher to any and all of these. We will be discussing a variety of different types of qualitative designs in Chapter 22 , including ethnography. Observational data is especially important for ethnographic research designs.

Researcher engagement

Observational data gathering is a more indirect form of data collection when compared with previous methods we have discussed. With both interviews and focus groups, you are gathering data directly from participants. When making observations, we are relying on our interpretation of what is going on. Even though we are often not directly interacting with people, we generally have an ethical responsibility to disclose that we are gathering data by making observations and gain consent to do so. That being said, there are some instances where we are making observations in public spaces, and in these instances disclosure may not be necessary because we are not gathering any identifiable information about specific people. These instances are rare, but if you are in doubt, consult with your IRB.

Even though I just suggested that making observations is often a more indirect form of data gathering, it does exist on a continuum. If utilizing observational data, you will need to consider where you fall on this continuum. Some research designs situate the researcher as an active participant in the community or group that they are studying, while other designs have the researcher as an independent and detached onlooker. In either case, you need to consider how your presence, either involved or detached, may influence the data you are gathering. This requires us to think of this on a more individual or micro level (how do the individuals we are directly observing perceive us) and a more mezzo or even macro level (how does the community or group of people we are studying collectively feel about our presence and our research)? Are people changing their behavior because of your presence? Are people monitoring or censoring what they say? We can’t always know the answers to these questions, but we can try to reduce these concerns by making repeated observations over time, rather than using a one-time, in-and-out data gathering mission. This means actually spending time within the community that is the focus of your observation. Taking the time to make repeated observations will allow you to develop a reasonable framework of understanding, which in turn will empower you to better interpret what you see and help you determine whether your observations and interpretation are consistent.

Observational skills

When gathering observational data, you are often attending to or taking in many different dimensions. You are potentially observing:

the context of the environment
the content of what is being said
behaviors of people
affective or emotional aspects of interactions
sequences of events
your own reactions to what is being observed

To capture this information, you will need to be keenly aware, focused, and organized. Additionally, you need to make sure you are capturing clear descriptions of what is going on. Remember, notes that seem completely logical and easy to understand at the time you are taking them can become vague and confusing with the passage of time and as you gather more and more data. Part of the clarity of your description often involves taking a non-judgmental approach to documenting your observations. While this may seem easy, judgments or biases frequently slip into our thinking and writing (unbeknownst to us). Along with a non-judgmental stance, researchers making observations also attempt to be as unobtrusive as possible. This means being conscious of your behaviors, your dress and overall appearance. If you show up wearing a suit and tie, and carrying a clipboard while everyone else is wearing jeans and t-shirts, you are likely to stick out like a sore thumb. This is also likely to influence how participants respond and interact with you. Know the environment that you are making your observations in, with a goal of blending in as much as possible.

Observational data is most often captured using field notes. Using recordings for observational data is infrequently used in social work research. This is especially true because of the potential for violations of privacy and threats to confidentiality that recordings (video or audio) may pose to participants. Mirroring our discussion above, when taking field notes, make sure to be organized and have a plan for how you will structure your notes so they are easy to interpret and make sense to you. Creswell (2013) [2] suggests capturing ‘descriptive’ and ‘reflective’ aspects in your observational field notes. Table 18.3 offers some more detailed description of what to include as you capture your data and corresponding examples.

Table 18.3 Areas to capture in observational field notes and examples

	What details help to frame the logistics of the interaction	Date: Place: Time:
	What you observe externally
	What you observe internally

For the purposes of qualitative research, our observations are generally unstructured or more naturalistic . However, you may also see mention of more systematic or structured observations. This is more common for quantitative data collection, where we may be attempting to capture or count the frequency with which a specific behavior or event occurs.

Observational data collection can be an effective tool for gathering information about settings, interactions, and general human behavior. However, since this is gathered strictly through the researchers own direct observation, it is not a source of data on people’s thoughts, perceptions, values, opinions, beliefs or interpretations.
There are a range of aspects that we may want to take note of while we are observing (e.g. the setting, interactions, descriptions of people, etc.).
While we are making our observations, we generally want to do so as inconspicuously and non-judgmentally as possible.

Resources for learning more about conducting Qualitative Observations.

Kawulich, B.B. (2005, May) Participant observation as a data collection method .

Kawulich, B.B. (2012). Collecting data through observation . In C. Wagner, B. Kawulich, & M. Garner (Eds.), Doing social research: A global context ( 150-160). New York: McGraw Hill.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2008). Qualitative Guidelines Project: Observations .

Sliter, M. (2014, June 30). Observational methods: Research methods.

A few exemplars of studies employing qualitative observations:

Avby et al. (2017). Knowledge use and learning in everyday social work practice: A study in child investigation work .

Wilkins et al. (2018). A golden thread? The relationship between supervision, practice, and family engagement in child and family social work .

Wood et al. (2017). The “gray zone” of police work during mental health encounters: Findings from an observational study in Chicago .

18.7 Documents and other artifacts

Identify key considerations when planning to analyze documents and other artifacts as a strategy for qualitative data gathering, including preparations, tools, and skills to support it
Assess whether analyzing documents and other artifacts is an effective approach to gather data for your qualitative research proposal

Qualitative researchers may also elect to utilize existing documents (e.g. reports, newspapers, blogs, minutes) or other artifacts (e.g. photos, videos, performances, works of art) as sources of data. Artifact analysis can provide important information on a specific topic, for instance, how same-sex couples are portrayed in the media. They also may provide contextual information regarding the values and popular sentiments of a given time and/or place. When choosing to utilize documents and other artifacts as a source of data for your project, remember that you are approaching these as a researcher, not just as a consumer of media. You need to thoughtfully plan what artifacts you will include, with a clear justification for their selection that is solidly linked to your research question, as well as a plan for systematically approaching these artifacts to identify and obtain relevant information from them.

Obtaining your artifacts

As you begin considering what artifacts you will be using for your research study, there are two points to consider: what will help you to answer your research question and what can you gain access to. In addressing the first of these considerations, you may already have a good idea about what artifacts are needed because you have done a substantial amount of preliminary work and you know this area well. However, if you are unsure, or you need to supplement your existing knowledge, some general sources can include: librarians, historians, community experts, topical experts, organizations or agencies that address the issue or serve the population you will be studying, and other researchers who study this area. In considering access, if the artifacts are public the answer may be a straightforward yes, but if the documents are privately held, you may need to be granted permission – and remember, this is permission to use them for research purposes, not just to view them. When obtaining permission, get something in writing, so that you have this handy to submit with your IRB application. While the types of artifacts you might include are almost endless (given they are relevant to your research question), Table 18.4 offers a list of some ideas for different sources you might consider:

Table 18.4 Sources of artifacts for qualitative research
Newspapers	Films	Meeting Minutes
Organizational Charts	Autobiographies	Blogs
Web Pages	Text Message Discussions	Pieces of Art
Objects in a Special Collection of a Museum	Pamphlets	Dance Recitals
Speeches	Historical Records	Letters

Artifact analysis skills

Consistent with other areas of research, but perhaps especially salient to the use of artifacts, you will require organizational skills. Depending on what sources you choose to include, you may literally have volumes of data. Furthermore, you might not just be dealing with a large amount of data, but also a variety of types of data. Regardless of whether you are using physical or virtual data, you need to have a way to label and catalog (or file) each artifact so that you can easily track it down. As you collect specific information from each piece, make sure it is tagged with the appropriate label so that you can track it back down, as you very well may need to reference it later. This is also very important for honest and transparency in your work as a qualitative researcher – documenting a way to trace your findings back to the raw data .

In addition to staying organized, you also need to think specifically about what you are looking for in the artifacts. This might seem silly, but depending on the amount of data you are dealing with and how broad your research topic is, it might be hard to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’ and figure out what is important or relevant information. Sometimes this is more clearly defined and we have a prescribed list of things we are looking for. This prescribed list may come from existing literature on the topic. This prescribed list may be based on peer-reviewed literature that is more conceptual, meaning that it focuses on defining concepts, putting together propositions, formulating early stage theories, and laying out professional wisdom, rather than reporting research findings. Drawing on this literature, we can then examine our data to see if there is evidence of these ideas and what this evidence tells us about these concepts. If this is the case, make sure you document this list somewhere, and on this list define each item and provide a code that you can attach when you see it in each document. This document then becomes your codebook .

However, if you aren’t clear ahead of time what this list might be, you may take an emergent approach, meaning that you have some general ideas of what you are seeking. In this event, you will actively create a codebook as you go, like the one described above, as you encounter these ideas in your artifacts. This helps you to gain a better understanding of what items should be included in your list, rather than coming in with preconceived notions about what they should be. There will be more about tracking this in our next chapter on qualitative analysis. Whether you have a prescribed list or use a more emergent design to develop your codebook, you will likely make modifications or corrections to it along the way as your knowledge evolves. When you make these changes, it is very important to have a way to document what changes you made, when, and why. Again, this helps to keep you honest, organized, and transparent. Just as another reminder, if you are using predetermined codes that you are looking for, this is reflective of a more deductive approach, whereas seeking emergent codes is more inductive .

Finally, when using artifacts, you may also need to bring in some creative, out-of-the-box thinking. You may be bringing together many different pieces of data that look and sound nothing alike, yet you are seeking information from them that will allow you tell a cohesive story. You may need to be fluid or flexible in how you are looking at things, and potentially challenge your preconceived notions.

As alluded to above, you may have physical artifacts that you are dealing with, digital artifacts or representations of these artifacts (e.g. videos, photos, recordings), or even field notes about artifacts (for instance, if you take notes of a dramatic performance that can’t be recorded). A large part of what may drive your decisions about how to capture your data may be related to your level of access to those artifacts: can you look at it? Can you touch it, can you take it home with you, can you take a picture of it? Depending on what artifacts we are talking about, some of these may be important questions. Regardless of the answers to these questions, you will need to have a clearly articulated and well-documented plan for how you are obtaining the data and how you will reference it in the future. Table 18.4 provides a list of data gathering activities you might consider, both for documents and for other audiovisual materials.

What types of artifacts might you have access to that might help to answer your research question(s)?

These could be artifacts available at your field placement, publically available media, through school, or through public institutions
These can be documents or they can be audiovisual materials
Think outside the box, how can you gather direct or indirect indications of the thing you are studying

Generate a list of at least 3

Again, drawing on Creswell’s (2013) suggestion of capturing ‘descriptive’ and ‘reflective’ aspects in your field notes, Table 18.5 offers some more detailed description of what to include as your capture your data and corresponding examples when focusing on an artifact.

Table 18.5 Areas to capture with artifact field notes and examples

	What details help to frame the logistics of the interaction	Date: Artifact: Source: Source Information:
	What you observe externally
	What you observe internally

Resources to learn more about qualitative research with artifacts.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method .

Rowsell, J. (2011). Carrying my family with me: Artifacts as emic perspectives .

Hammond, J., & McDermott, I. (n.d.). Policy document analysis .

Wang et al. (2017). Arts-based methods in socially engaged research practice: A classification framework .

A few exemplars of studies utilizing documents and other artifacts.

Casey, R. C. (2018). Hard time: A content analysis of incarcerated women’s personal accounts .

Green, K. R. (2018). Exploring the implications of shifting HIV prevention practice Ideologies on the Work of Community-Based Organizations: A Resource dependence perspective .

Sousa, P., & Almeida, J. L. (2016). Culturally sensitive social work: promoting cultural competence .

Secondary data analysis

I wanted to briefly provide some special attention to secondary data analysis at the end of this chapter. In the past two chapters we have focused our sights most often on what we would call raw data sources . However, you can of course conduct qualitative research with secondary data , which is data that was collected previously for another research project or other purpose; data is not originating from your research process. If you are fortunate enough to have access and permission to use qualitative data that had already been collected, you can pose a new research question that may be answered by analyzing this data. This saves you the time and energy from having to collect the data yourself!

You might procure this data because you know the researcher that collected the original data. For instance, as a student, perhaps there is a faculty member that allows you access to data they had previously collected for another project. Alternatively, maybe you locate a source of qualitative data that is publicly available. Examples of this might include interviews previously conducted with Holocaust survivors. Finally, you might register and join a research data repository . These are sites where contributing researchers can house data that other researchers can view and request permission to use. Syracuse University hosts a repository that is explicitly dedicated to qualitative data . While there are more of these emerging, it may be a challenge to find the specific data you are looking for in a repository. You should also anticipate that data from repositories will have all identifiable information removed. Sharing data you have collected with a repository is a good way to extend the potential usefulness and impact of data, but it also should be anticipated before you collect your data so that you can build it into any informed consent so participants are made aware of the possibility.

Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)

Some qualitative researchers use software packages known as Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) in their work. These are tools that can aid researchers in managing, organizing and manipulating/analyzing their data. Some of the more common tools include NVivo, Atlas.ti, and MAXQDA, which have licensing fees attached to them (although many have discounted student rates). However, there are also some free options available if you do some hunting. Taguette Project is the only free and open source CAQDAS project that is currently receiving updates, as previous projects like RQDA which built from the R library are not in active development. Taguette is a young project, and unlike the free alternatives for quantitative data analysis, it lacks the sophisticated analytical tools of commercial CAQDAS programs.

It is unlikely that you will be using a CAQDAS for a student project, mostly because of the additional time investment it will take to become familiar with the software and associated costs (if applicable). In fact the best way to avoid spending money on qualitative data analysis software is to do your analysis by hand or using word processing or spreadsheet software. If you continue on with other qualitative research projects, it may be worth some additional study to learn more about CAQDAS tools. If you do choose to use one of these products, it won’t magically do the analysis for you. You need to be clear about what you are using the software for and how it supports your analysis plan, which will be the focus of our next chapter.

Resources to learn more about CAQDAS.

Maher et al. (2018). Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis: A design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material methods .

Woods et al. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS. ti and NVivo, 1994–2013 .

Zamawe, F. C. (2015). The implication of using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis: Evidence-based reflections .

As you continue to plan your research proposal, make sure to give practical thought to how you will go about collecting your qualitative data. Hopefully this chapter helped you to consider which methods are appropriate and what skills might be required to apply that particular method well. Revisit the table in section 18.3 that summarizes each of these approaches and some of the strengths and challenges associated with each of them. Collecting qualitative data can be a labor-intensive process, to be sure. However, I personally find it very rewarding. In its very forms, we are bearing witness to people’s stories and experiences.

Artifact analysis can be particularly useful for qualitative research as a means of studying existing data; meaning we aren’t having to collect the data ourselves, but we do have to gather it. As a limitation, we don’t have any control over how the data was created, since we weren’t involved in it.
There are many sources of existing data that we can consider for artifact analysis. Think of all the things around us that can help to tell some story! Artifact analysis may be especially appealing as a potential time saver for student researchers if you can gain permission to use existing artifacts or use artifacts that are publicly available.
Artifact analysis still requires a systematic and premeditated approach to how you will go about extract information from your artifacts.

Here are a few questions to get you thinking about the role that you play as you gather qualitative data.

What are your initial thoughts about qualitative data collection?
Why might that be?
What excites you about this process?
What worries you about this process?
What aspects of yourself will strengthen or enhance this process?
What aspects of yourself may hinder or challenge this process?

Decision Point: How will you go about qualitative data collection?

Justify your choice(s) here in relation to your research question and availability of resources at your disposal
who will be collecting data
what will be involved
how will it be safely stored and organized
how are you protecting human participants
if you have a team, how is communication being established so everyone is “on the same page”
how will you know you are done
What additional information do you need to know to use this approach?

Media Attributions

checklist © mohamed_hassan is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
start and finish line © Andrew Hurley is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike) license
field notes © Tom Carmony is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives) license
group talking © Enoz is licensed under a CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial) license
children watching penguins © Amelia Beamish is licensed under a CC BY-NC (Attribution NonCommercial) license
Swarbrick, M. (2006). A wellness approach. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 29 (4), 311. ↵
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Chapter 7. Data collection. In J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.), Los Angeles: Sage ↵
Harris, M. and Fallot, R. (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. New Directions for Mental Health Service s. Jossey Bass; Farragher, B. and Yanosy, S. (2005). Creating a trauma-sensitive culture in residential treatment. Therapeutic Communities, 26 (1), 93-109. ↵

A form of data gathering where researchers ask individual participants to respond to a series of (mostly open-ended) questions.

A form of data gathering where researchers ask a group of participants to respond to a series of (mostly open-ended) questions.

Observation is a tool for data gathering where researchers rely on their own senses (e.g. sight, sound) to gather information on a topic.

The identity of the person providing data cannot be connected to the data provided at any time in the research process, by anyone.

For research purposes, confidentiality means that only members of the research team have access potentially identifiable information that could be associated with participant data. According to confidentiality, it is the research team's responsibility to restrict access to this information by other parties, including the public.

Fake names assigned in research to protect the identity of participants.

Numbers or a series of numbers, symbols and letters assigned in research to both organize data as it is collected, as well as protecting the identity of participants.

A process through which the researcher explains the research process, procedures, risks and benefits to a potential participant, usually through a written document, which the participant than signs, as evidence of their agreement to participate.

an administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated

For the purposes of research, authenticity means that we do not misrepresent ourselves, our interests or our research; we are genuine in our interactions with participants and other colleagues.

An approach to research that more intentionally attempts to involve community members throughout the research process compared to more traditional research methods. In addition, participatory approaches often seek some concrete, tangible change for the benefit of the community (often defined by the community).

A research journal that helps the researcher to reflect on and consider their thoughts and reactions to the research process and how it may be shaping the study

The point where gathering more data doesn't offer any new ideas or perspectives on the issue you are studying. Reaching saturation is an indication that we can stop qualitative data collection.

A combination of two people or objects

An interview guide is a document that outlines the flow of information during your interview, including a greeting and introduction to orient your participant to the topic, your questions and any probes, and any debriefing statement you might include. If you are part of a research team, your interview guide may also include instructions for the interviewer if certain things are brought up in the interview or as general guidance.

Context is the circumstances surrounding an artifact, event, or experience.

Notes that are taken by the researcher while we are in the field, gathering data.

Expanded field notes represents the field notes that we have taken during data collection after we have had time to sit down and add details to them that we were not able to capture immediately at the point of collection.

A statement at the end of data collection (e.g. at the end of a survey or interview) that generally thanks participants and reminds them what the research was about, what it's purpose is, resources available to them if they need them, and contact information for the researcher if they have questions or concerns.

Interview that uses a very prescribed or structured approach, with a rigid set of questions that are asked very consistently each time, with little to no deviation

An interview that has a general framework for the questions that will be asked, but there is more flexibility to pursue related topics that are brought up by participants than is found in a structured interview approach.

Interviews that contain very open-ended talking prompt that we want participants to respond to, with much flexibility to follow the conversation where it leads.

starts by reading existing theories, then testing hypotheses and revising or confirming the theory

when a researcher starts with a set of observations and then moves from particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences

Emergent design is the idea that some decision in our research design will be dynamic and change as our understanding of the research question evolves as we go through the research process. This is (often) evident in qualitative research, but rare in quantitative research.

Probes a brief prompts or follow up questions that are used in qualitative interviewing to help draw out additional information on a particular question or idea.

Testing out your research materials in advance on people who are not included as participants in your study.

Someone who has the formal or informal authority to grant permission or access to a particular community.

A document that will outline the instructions for conducting your focus group, including the questions you will ask participants. It often concludes with a debriefing statement for the group, as well.

Ethnography is a qualitative research design that is used when we are attempting to learn about a culture by observing people in their natural environment.

Making qualitative observations that attempt to capture the subjects of the observation as unobtrusively as possible and with limited structure to the observation.

The analysis of documents (or other existing artifacts) as a source of data.

unprocessed data that researchers can analyze using quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., responses to a survey or interview transcripts)

A code is a label that we place on segment of data that seems to represent the main idea of that segment.

A document that we use to keep track of and define the codes that we have identified (or are using) in our qualitative data analysis.

study publicly available information or data that has been collected by another person

in a literature review, a source that describes primary data collected and analyzed by the author, rather than only reviewing what other researchers have found

Data someone else has collected that you have permission to use in your research.

These are sites where contributing researchers can house data that other researchers can view and request permission to use

These are software tools that can aid qualitative researchers in managing, organizing and manipulating/analyzing their data.

Graduate research methods in social work Copyright © 2021 by Matthew DeCarlo, Cory Cummings, Kate Agnelli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Integrations

What's new?

In-Product Prompts

Participant Management

Interview Studies

Prototype Testing

Card Sorting

Tree Testing

Live Website Testing

Automated Reports

Templates Gallery

Choose from our library of pre-built mazes to copy, customize, and share with your own users

Browse all templates

Financial Services

Tech & Software

Product Designers

Product Managers

User Researchers

By use case

Concept & Idea Validation

Wireframe & Usability Test

Content & Copy Testing

Feedback & Satisfaction

Content Hub

Educational resources for product, research and design teams

Explore all resources

Question Bank

Research Maturity Model

Guides & Reports

Help Center

Future of User Research Report

The Optimal Path Podcast

Qualitative research examples: How to unlock, rich, descriptive insights

User Research

Aug 19, 2024 • 17 minutes read

Qualitative research examples: How to unlock, rich, descriptive insights

Qualitative research uncovers in-depth user insights, but what does it look like? Here are seven methods and examples to help you get the data you need.

Armin Tanovic

Behind every what, there’s a why . Qualitative research is how you uncover that why. It enables you to connect with users and understand their thoughts, feelings, wants, needs, and pain points.

There’s many methods for conducting qualitative research, and many objectives it can help you pursue—you might want to explore ways to improve NPS scores, combat reduced customer retention, or understand (and recreate) the success behind a well-received product. The common thread? All these metrics impact your business, and qualitative research can help investigate and improve that impact.

In this article, we’ll take you through seven methods and examples of qualitative research, including when and how to use them.

Qualitative UX research made easy

Conduct qualitative research with Maze, analyze data instantly, and get rich, descriptive insights that drive decision-making.

7 Qualitative research methods: An overview

There are various qualitative UX research methods that can help you get in-depth, descriptive insights. Some are suited to specific phases of the design and development process, while others are more task-oriented.

Here’s our overview of the most common qualitative research methods. Keep reading for their use cases, and detailed examples of how to conduct them.

Method
User interviews
Focus groups
Ethnographic research
Qualitative observation
Case study research
Secondary research
Open-ended surveys			to extract descriptive insights.

1. User interviews

A user interview is a one-on-one conversation between a UX researcher, designer or Product Manager and a target user to understand their thoughts, perspectives, and feelings on a product or service. User interviews are a great way to get non-numerical data on individual experiences with your product, to gain a deeper understanding of user perspectives.

Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured . Structured interviews follow a strict interview script and can help you get answers to your planned questions, while semi and unstructured interviews are less rigid in their approach and typically lead to more spontaneous, user-centered insights.

When to use user interviews

Interviews are ideal when you want to gain an in-depth understanding of your users’ perspectives on your product or service, and why they feel a certain way.

Interviews can be used at any stage in the product design and development process, being particularly helpful during:

The discovery phase: To better understand user needs, problems, and the context in which they use your product—revealing the best potential solutions
The design phase: To get contextual feedback on mockups, wireframes, and prototypes, helping you pinpoint issues and the reasons behind them
Post-launch: To assess if your product continues to meet users’ shifting expectations and understand why or why not

How to conduct user interviews: The basics

Draft questions based on your research objectives
Recruit relevant research participants and schedule interviews
Conduct the interview and transcribe responses
Analyze the interview responses to extract insights
Use your findings to inform design, product, and business decisions

💡 A specialized user interview tool makes interviewing easier. With Maze Interview Studies , you can recruit, host, and analyze interviews all on one platform.

User interviews: A qualitative research example

Let’s say you’ve designed a recruitment platform, called Tech2Talent , that connects employers with tech talent. Before starting the design process, you want to clearly understand the pain points employers experience with existing recruitment tools'.

You draft a list of ten questions for a semi-structured interview for 15 different one-on-one interviews. As it’s semi-structured, you don’t expect to ask all the questions—the script serves as more of a guide.

One key question in your script is: “Have tech recruitment platforms helped you find the talent you need in the past?”

Most respondents answer with a resounding and passionate ‘no’ with one of them expanding:

“For our company, it’s been pretty hit or miss honestly. They let just about anyone make a profile and call themselves tech talent. It’s so hard sifting through serious candidates. I can’t see any of their achievements until I invest time setting up an interview.”

You begin to notice a pattern in your responses: recruitment tools often lack easily accessible details on talent profiles.

You’ve gained contextual feedback on why other recruitment platforms fail to solve user needs.

2. Focus groups

A focus group is a research method that involves gathering a small group of people—around five to ten users—to discuss a specific topic, such as their’ experience with your new product feature. Unlike user interviews, focus groups aim to capture the collective opinion of a wider market segment and encourage discussion among the group.

When to use focus groups

You should use focus groups when you need a deeper understanding of your users’ collective opinions. The dynamic discussion among participants can spark in-depth insights that might not emerge from regular interviews.

Focus groups can be used before, during, and after a product launch. They’re ideal:

Throughout the problem discovery phase: To understand your user segment’s pain points and expectations, and generate product ideas
Post-launch: To evaluate and understand the collective opinion of your product’s user experience
When conducting market research: To grasp usage patterns, consumer perceptions, and market opportunities for your product

How to conduct focus group studies: The basics

Draft prompts to spark conversation, or a series of questions based on your UX research objectives
Find a group of five to ten users who are representative of your target audience (or a specific user segment) and schedule your focus group session
Conduct the focus group by talking and listening to users, then transcribe responses
Analyze focus group responses and extract insights
Use your findings to inform design decisions

The number of participants can make it difficult to take notes or do manual transcriptions. We recommend using a transcription or a specialized UX research tool , such as Maze, that can automatically create ready-to-share reports and highlight key user insights.

Focus groups: A qualitative research example

You’re a UX researcher at FitMe , a fitness app that creates customized daily workouts for gym-goers. Unlike many other apps, FitMe takes into account the previous day’s workout and aims to create one that allows users to effectively rest different muscles.

However, FitMe has an issue. Users are generating workouts but not completing them. They’re accessing the app, taking the necessary steps to get a workout for the day, but quitting at the last hurdle.

Time to talk to users.

You organize a focus group to get to the root of the drop-off issue. You invite five existing users, all of whom have dropped off at the exact point you’re investigating, and ask them questions to uncover why.

A dialog develops:

Participant 1: “Sometimes I’ll get a workout that I just don’t want to do. Sure, it’s a good workout—but I just don’t want to physically do it. I just do my own thing when that happens.”

Participant 2: “Same here, some of them are so boring. I go to the gym because I love it. It’s an escape.”

Participant 3: “Right?! I get that the app generates the best one for me on that specific day, but I wish I could get a couple of options.”

Participant 4: “I’m the same, there are some exercises I just refuse to do. I’m not coming to the gym to do things I dislike.”

Conducting the focus groups and reviewing the transcripts, you realize that users want options. A workout that works for one gym-goer doesn’t necessarily work for the next.

A possible solution? Adding the option to generate a new workout (that still considers previous workouts)and the ability to blacklist certain exercises, like burpees.

3. Ethnographic research

Ethnographic research is a research method that involves observing and interacting with users in a real-life environment. By studying users in their natural habitat, you can understand how your product fits into their daily lives.

Ethnographic research can be active or passive. Active ethnographic research entails engaging with users in their natural environment and then following up with methods like interviews. Passive ethnographic research involves letting the user interact with the product while you note your observations.

When to use ethnographic research

Ethnographic research is best suited when you want rich insights into the context and environment in which users interact with your product. Keep in mind that you can conduct ethnographic research throughout the entire product design and development process —from problem discovery to post-launch. However, it’s mostly done early in the process:

Early concept development: To gain an understanding of your user's day-to-day environment. Observe how they complete tasks and the pain points they encounter. The unique demands of their everyday lives will inform how to design your product.
Initial design phase: Even if you have a firm grasp of the user’s environment, you still need to put your solution to the test. Conducting ethnographic research with your users interacting with your prototype puts theory into practice.

How to conduct ethnographic research:

Recruit users who are reflective of your audience
Meet with them in their natural environment, and tell them to behave as they usually would
Take down field notes as they interact with your product
Engage with your users, ask questions, or host an in-depth interview if you’re doing an active ethnographic study
Collect all your data and analyze it for insights

While ethnographic studies provide a comprehensive view of what potential users actually do, they are resource-intensive and logistically difficult. A common alternative is diary studies. Like ethnographic research, diary studies examine how users interact with your product in their day-to-day, but the data is self-reported by participants.

⚙️ Recruiting participants proving tough and time-consuming? Maze Panel makes it easy, with 400+ filters to find your ideal participants from a pool of 3 million participants.

Ethnographic research: A qualitative research example

You're a UX researcher for a project management platform called ProFlow , and you’re conducting an ethnographic study of the project creation process with key users, including a startup’s COO.

The first thing you notice is that the COO is rushing while navigating the platform. You also take note of the 46 tabs and Zoom calls opened on their monitor. Their attention is divided, and they let out an exasperated sigh as they repeatedly hit “refresh” on your website’s onboarding interface.

You conclude the session with an interview and ask, “How easy or difficult did you find using ProFlow to coordinate a project?”

The COO answers: “Look, the whole reason we turn to project platforms is because we need to be quick on our feet. I’m doing a million things so I need the process to be fast and simple. The actual project management is good, but creating projects and setting up tables is way too complicated.”

You realize that ProFlow ’s project creation process takes way too much time for professionals working in fast-paced, dynamic environments. To solve the issue, propose a quick-create option that enables them to move ahead with the basics instead of requiring in-depth project details.

4. Qualitative observation

Qualitative observation is a similar method to ethnographic research, though not as deep. It involves observing your users in a natural or controlled environment and taking notes as they interact with a product. However, be sure not to interrupt them, as this compromises the integrity of the study and turns it into active ethnographic research.

When to qualitative observation

Qualitative observation is best when you want to record how users interact with your product without anyone interfering. Much like ethnographic research, observation is best done during:

Early concept development: To help you understand your users' daily lives, how they complete tasks, and the problems they deal with. The observations you collect in these instances will help you define a concept for your product.
Initial design phase: Observing how users deal with your prototype helps you test if they can easily interact with it in their daily environments

How to conduct qualitative observation:

Recruit users who regularly use your product
Meet with users in either their natural environment, such as their office, or within a controlled environment, such as a lab
Observe them and take down field notes based on what you notice

Qualitative observation: An qualitative research example

You’re conducting UX research for Stackbuilder , an app that connects businesses with tools ideal for their needs and budgets. To determine if your app is easy to use for industry professionals, you decide to conduct an observation study.

Sitting in with the participant, you notice they breeze past the onboarding process, quickly creating an account for their company. Yet, after specifying their company’s budget, they suddenly slow down. They open links to each tool’s individual page, confusingly switching from one tab to another. They let out a sigh as they read through each website.

Conducting your observation study, you realize that users find it difficult to extract information from each tool’s website. Based on your field notes, you suggest including a bullet-point summary of each tool directly on your platform.

5. Case study research

Case studies are a UX research method that provides comprehensive and contextual insights into a real-world case over a long period of time. They typically include a range of other qualitative research methods, like interviews, observations, and ethnographic research. A case study allows you to form an in-depth analysis of how people use your product, helping you uncover nuanced differences between your users.

When to use case studies

Case studies are best when your product involves complex interactions that need to be tracked over a longer period or through in-depth analysis. You can also use case studies when your product is innovative, and there’s little existing data on how users interact with it.

As for specific phases in the product design and development process:

Initial design phase: Case studies can help you rigorously test for product issues and the reasons behind them, giving you in-depth feedback on everything between user motivations, friction points, and usability issues
Post-launch phase: Continuing with case studies after launch can give you ongoing feedback on how users interact with the product in their day-to-day lives. These insights ensure you can meet shifting user expectations with product updates and future iterations

How to conduct case studies:

Outline an objective for your case study such as examining specific user tasks or the overall user journey
Select qualitative research methods such as interviews, ethnographic studies, or observations
Collect and analyze your data for comprehensive insights
Include your findings in a report with proposed solutions

Case study research: A qualitative research example

Your team has recently launched Pulse , a platform that analyzes social media posts to identify rising digital marketing trends. Pulse has been on the market for a year, and you want to better understand how it helps small businesses create successful campaigns.

To conduct your case study, you begin with a series of interviews to understand user expectations, ethnographic research sessions, and focus groups. After sorting responses and observations into common themes you notice a main recurring pattern. Users have trouble interpreting the data from their dashboards, making it difficult to identify which trends to follow.

With your synthesized insights, you create a report with detailed narratives of individual user experiences, common themes and issues, and recommendations for addressing user friction points.

Some of your proposed solutions include creating intuitive graphs and summaries for each trend study. This makes it easier for users to understand trends and implement strategic changes in their campaigns.

6. Secondary research

Secondary research is a research method that involves collecting and analyzing documents, records, and reviews that provide you with contextual data on your topic. You’re not connecting with participants directly, but rather accessing pre-existing available data. For example, you can pull out insights from your UX research repository to reexamine how they apply to your new UX research objective.

Strictly speaking, it can be both qualitative and quantitative—but today we focus on its qualitative application.

When to use secondary research

Record keeping is particularly useful when you need supplemental insights to complement, validate, or compare current research findings. It helps you analyze shifting trends amongst your users across a specific period. Some other scenarios where you need record keeping include:

Initial discovery or exploration phase: Secondary research can help you quickly gather background information and data to understand the broader context of a market
Design and development phase: See what solutions are working in other contexts for an idea of how to build yours

Secondary research is especially valuable when your team faces budget constraints, tight deadlines, or limited resources. Through review mining and collecting older findings, you can uncover useful insights that drive decision-making throughout the product design and development process.

How to conduct secondary research:

Outline your UX research objective
Identify potential data sources for information on your product, market, or target audience. Some of these sources can include: a. Review websites like Capterra and G2 b. Social media channels c. Customer service logs and disputes d. Website reviews e. Reports and insights from previous research studies f. Industry trends g. Information on competitors
Analyze your data by identifying recurring patterns and themes for insights

Secondary research: A qualitative research example

SafeSurf is a cybersecurity platform that offers threat detection, security audits, and real-time reports. After conducting multiple rounds of testing, you need a quick and easy way to identify remaining usability issues. Instead of conducting another resource-intensive method, you opt for social listening and data mining for your secondary research.

Browsing through your company’s X, you identify a recurring theme: many users without a background in tech find SafeSurf ’s reports too technical and difficult to read. Users struggle with understanding what to do if their networks are breached.

After checking your other social media channels and review sites, the issue pops up again.

With your gathered insights, your team settles on introducing a simplified version of reports, including clear summaries, takeaways, and step-by-step protocols for ensuring security.

By conducting secondary research, you’ve uncovered a major usability issue—all without spending large amounts of time and resources to connect with your users.

7. Open-ended surveys

Open-ended surveys are a type of unmoderated UX research method that involves asking users to answer a list of qualitative research questions designed to uncover their attitudes, expectations, and needs regarding your service or product. Open-ended surveys allow users to give in-depth, nuanced, and contextual responses.

When to use open-ended surveys

User surveys are an effective qualitative research method for reaching a large number of users. You can use them at any stage of the design and product development process, but they’re particularly useful:

When you’re conducting generative research : Open-ended surveys allow you to reach a wide range of users, making them especially useful during initial research phases when you need broad insights into user experiences
When you need to understand customer satisfaction: Open-ended customer satisfaction surveys help you uncover why your users might be dissatisfied with your product, helping you find the root cause of their negative experiences
In combination with close-ended surveys: Get a combination of numerical, statistical insights and rich descriptive feedback. You’ll know what a specific percentage of your users think and why they think it.

How to conduct open-ended surveys:

Design your survey and draft out a list of survey questions
Distribute your surveys to respondents
Analyze survey participant responses for key themes and patterns
Use your findings to inform your design process

Open-ended surveys: A qualitative research example

You're a UX researcher for RouteReader , a comprehensive logistics platform that allows users to conduct shipment tracking and route planning. Recently, you’ve launched a new predictive analytics feature that allows users to quickly identify and prepare for supply chain disruptions.

To better understand if users find the new feature helpful, you create an open-ended, in-app survey.

The questions you ask your users:

“What has been your experience with our new predictive analytics feature?"
“Do you find it easy or difficult to rework your routes based on our predictive suggestions?”
“Does the predictive analytics feature make planning routes easier? Why or why not?”

Most of the responses are positive. Users report using the predictive analytics feature to make last-minute adjustments to their route plans, and some even rely on it regularly. However, a few users find the feature hard to notice, making it difficult to adjust their routes on time.

To ensure users have supply chain insights on time, you integrate the new feature into each interface so users can easily spot important information and adjust their routes accordingly.

💡 Surveys are a lot easier with a quality survey tool. Maze’s Feedback Surveys solution has all you need to ensure your surveys get the insights you need—including AI-powered follow-up and automated reports.

Qualitative research vs. quantitative research: What’s the difference?

Alongside qualitative research approaches, UX teams also use quantitative research methods. Despite the similar names, the two are very different.

Here are some of the key differences between qualitative research and quantitative research .

Research type
Qualitative research			.
Quantitative research

Before selecting either qualitative or quantitative methods, first identify what you want to achieve with your UX research project. As a general rule of thumb, think qualitative data collection for in-depth understanding and quantitative studies for measurement and validation.

Conduct qualitative research with Maze

You’ll often find that knowing the what is pointless without understanding the accompanying why . Qualitative research helps you uncover your why.

So, what about how —how do you identify your 'what' and your 'why'?

The answer is with a user research tool like Maze.

Maze is the leading user research platform that lets you organize, conduct, and analyze both qualitative and quantitative research studies—all from one place. Its wide variety of UX research methods and advanced AI capabilities help you get the insights you need to build the right products and experiences faster.

Frequently asked questions about qualitative research examples

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is a research method that aims to provide contextual, descriptive, and non-numerical insights on a specific issue. Qualitative research methods like interviews, case studies, and ethnographic studies allow you to uncover the reasoning behind your user’s attitudes and opinions.

Can a study be both qualitative and quantitative?

Absolutely! You can use mixed methods in your research design, which combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to gain both descriptive and statistical insights.

For example, user surveys can have both close-ended and open-ended questions, providing comprehensive data like percentages of user views and descriptive reasoning behind their answers.

Is qualitative or quantitative research better?

The choice between qualitative and quantitative research depends upon your research goals and objectives.

Qualitative research methods are better suited when you want to understand the complexities of your user’s problems and uncover the underlying motives beneath their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Quantitative research excels in giving you numerical data, helping you gain a statistical view of your user's attitudes, identifying trends, and making predictions.

What are some approaches to qualitative research?

There are many approaches to qualitative studies. An approach is the underlying theory behind a method, and a method is a way of implementing the approach. Here are some approaches to qualitative research:

Grounded theory: Researchers study a topic and develop theories inductively
Phenomenological research: Researchers study a phenomenon through the lived experiences of those involved
Ethnography: Researchers immerse themselves in organizations to understand how they operate

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik aspers.

1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

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

Qualitative and Quantitative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grounded Theory

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

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

Defining Qualitative Research

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

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

Distinctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improved Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Biographies

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

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

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .

Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .

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

Social Work: Research Overview

School of Social Work
Literature Reviews
Scoping Vs Systematic Reviews
Search Strategies
APA Tutorials and Software
Paper Formatting Basics
Citation Tips

Qualitative Vs Quantitative

Primary Vs Secondary Resources
Data Management
Research Mavs

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Guide

Qualitative lightbulb and quantitative bowl with blocks falling through bottom

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Videos
Comparison Charts
Example Questions
What Type of Article is This?

<< Previous: Research Knowledge Center
Next: Primary Vs Secondary Resources >>
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 12:24 PM
URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/SocialWorkResearchOverview

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

Internet Privacy
Accessibility
Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
BMJ Journals

Rebecca Payne 1 ,
Aileen Clarke 1 ,
Nadia Swann 1 ,
Jackie van Dael 1 ,
Natassia Brenman 1 ,
Rebecca Rosen 2 ,
Adam Mackridge 3 ,
Lucy Moore 1 ,
Asli Kalin 1 ,
Emma Ladds 1 ,
Nina Hemmings 2 ,
Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt 4 ,
Stuart Faulkner 1 ,
Isabel Hanson 1 ,
Sophie Spitters 5 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7758-8493 Sietse Wieringa 1 , 6 ,
Francesca H Dakin 1 ,
Sara E Shaw 1 ,
Joseph Wherton 1 ,
Richard Byng 4 ,
Laiba Husain 1 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088 Trisha Greenhalgh 1
1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK
2 Nuffield Trust , London , UK
3 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board , Bangor , UK
4 Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry , University of Plymouth , Plymouth , UK
5 Wolfson Institute of Population Health , Queen Mary University of London , London , UK
6 Sustainable Health Unit , University of Oslo , Oslo , Norway
Correspondence to Professor Trisha Greenhalgh; trish.greenhalgh{at}phc.ox.ac.uk

Background Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them.

Setting and sample UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021–2023.

Methods Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively (‘Safety I’ analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often (‘Safety II’ analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.

Results Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.

Conclusion While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Primary care
Diagnostic errors
Safety culture
Qualitative research
Prehospital care

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Details of real safety incidents are not available for patient confidentiality reasons. Requests for data on other aspects of the study from other researchers will be considered.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016674

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Safety incidents are extremely rare in primary care but they do happen. Concerns have been raised about the safety of remote triage and remote consultations.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Rare safety incidents (involving death or serious harm) in remote encounters can be traced back to various clinical, communicative, technical and logistical causes. Telephone and video encounters in general practice are occurring in a high-risk (extremely busy and sometimes understaffed) context in which remote workflows may not be optimised. Front-line staff use creativity and judgement to help make care safer.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

As remote modalities become mainstreamed in primary care, staff should be trained in the upstream causes of safety incidents and how they can be mitigated. The subtle and creative ways in which front-line staff already contribute to safety culture should be recognised and supported.

Introduction

In early 2020, remote triage and remote consultations (together, ‘remote encounters’), in which the patient is in a different physical location from the clinician or support staff member, were rapidly expanded as a safety measure in many countries because they eliminated the risk of transmitting COVID-19. 1–4 But by mid-2021, remote encounters had begun to be depicted as potentially unsafe because they had come to be associated with stories of patient harm, including avoidable deaths and missed cancers. 5–8

Providing triage and clinical care remotely is sometimes depicted as a partial solution to the system pressures facing primary healthcare in many countries, 9–11 including rising levels of need or demand, the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and workforce challenges (especially short-term or longer-term understaffing). In this context, remote encounters may be an important component of a mixed-modality health service when used appropriately alongside in-person contacts. 12 13 But this begs the question of what ‘appropriate’ and ‘safe’ use of remote modalities in a primary care context is. Safety incidents (defined as ‘any unintended or unexpected incident which could have, or did, lead to harm for one or more patients receiving healthcare 14 ’) are extremely rare in primary healthcare consultations generally, 15 16 in-hours general practice telephone triage 17 and out-of-hours primary care. 18 But the recent widespread expansion of remote triage and remote consulting in primary care means that a wider range of patients and conditions are managed remotely, making it imperative to re-examine where the risks lie.

Theoretical approaches to safety in healthcare fall broadly into two traditions. 19 ‘Safety I’ studies focus on what went wrong. Incident reports are analysed to identify ‘root causes’ and ‘safety gaps’, and recommendations are made to reduce the chance that further similar incidents will happen in the future. 20 Such studies, undertaken in isolation, tend to lead to a tightening of rules, procedures and protocols. ‘Safety II’ studies focus on why, most of the time, things do not go wrong. Ethnography and other qualitative methods are employed to study how humans respond creatively to unique and unforeseen situations, thereby preventing safety incidents most of the time. 19 Such studies tend to show that actions which achieve safety are highly context specific, may entail judiciously breaking the rules and require human qualities such as courage, initiative and adaptability. 21 Few previous studies have combined both approaches.

In this study, we aimed to use Safety I methods to learn why safety incidents occur (although rarely) in remote primary care encounters and also apply Safety II methods to examine the kinds of creative actions taken by front-line staff that contribute to a safety culture and thereby prevent such incidents.

Study design and origins

Multimethod qualitative study across UK, including incident analysis, longitudinal ethnography and national stakeholder interviews.

The idea for this safety study began during a longitudinal ethnographic study of 12 general practices across England, Scotland and Wales as they introduced (and, in some cases, subsequently withdrew) various remote and digital modalities. Practices were selected for maximum diversity in geographical location, population served and digital maturity and followed from mid-2021 to end 2023 using staff and patient interviews and in-person ethnographic visits. The study protocol, 22 baseline findings 23 and a training needs analysis 24 have been published. To provide context for our ethnography, we interviewed a sample of national stakeholders in remote and digital primary care, including out-of-hours providers running telephone-led services, and held four online multistakeholder workshops, one of which was on the theme of safety, for policymakers, clinicians, patients and other parties. Early data from this detailed qualitative work revealed staff and patient concerns about the safety of remote encounters but no actual examples of harm.

To explore the safety theme further, we decided to take a dual approach. First, following Safety I methodology for the study of rare harms, 20 we set out to identify and analyse a sample of safety incidents involving remote encounters. These were sourced from arm’s-length bodies (NHS England, NHS Resolution, Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch) and providers of healthcare at scale (health boards, integrated care systems and telephone advice services), since our own small sample had not identified any of these rare occurrences. Second, we extended our longitudinal ethnographic design to more explicitly incorporate Safety II methodology, 19 allowing us to examine safety culture and safety practices in our 12 participating general practices, especially the adaptive work done by staff to avert potential safety incidents.

Data sources and management

Table 1 summarises the data sources.

View inline

Summary of data sources

The Safety I dataset (rows 2-5) consisted of 95 specific incident reports, including complaints submitted to the main arm’s-length NHS body in England, NHS England, between 2020 and 2023 (n=69), closed indemnity claims that had been submitted to a national indemnity body, NHS Resolution, between 2015 and 2023 (n=16), reports from an urgent care telephone service in Wales (NHS 111 Wales) between 2020 and 2023 (n=6) and a report on an investigation of telephone advice during the COVID-19 crisis between 2020 and 2022 7 (n=4). These 95 incidents were organised using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

The Safety II dataset (rows 6-10) consisted of extracts from fieldnotes, workshop transcripts and interviews collected over 2 years, stored and coded on NVivo qualitative software. These were identified by searching for text words and codes (e.g. ‘risk’, ‘safety’, ‘incident’) and by asking researchers-in-residence, who were closely familiar with practices, to highlight safety incidents involving harm and examples of safety-conscious work practices. This dataset included over 100 formal interviews and numerous on-the-job interviews with practice staff, plus interviews with a sample of 10 GP (general practitioner) trainers and 10 GP trainees (penultimate row of table 1 ) and with six clinical safety experts identified through purposive sampling from government, arm’s-length bodies and health boards (bottom row of table 1 ).

Data analysis

We analysed incident reports, interview data and ethnographic fieldnotes using thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke. 25 These authors define a theme as an important, broad pattern in a set of qualitative data, which can (where necessary) be further refined using coding.

Themes in the incident dataset were identified by five steps. First, two researchers (both medically qualified) read each source repeatedly to gain familiarity. Second, those researchers worked independently using Braun and Clarke’s criterion (‘whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research question’—p 82 25 ) to identify themes. Third, they discussed their initial interpretations with each other and resolved differences through discussion. Fourth, they extracted evidence from the data sources to illustrate and refine each theme. Finally, they presented their list of themes along with illustrative examples to the wider team. Cases used to illustrate themes were systematically fictionalised by changing age, randomly allocating gender and altering clinical details. 26 For example, an acute appendicitis could be changed to acute diverticulitis if the issue was a missed acute abdomen.

These safety themes were then used to sensitise us to seek relevant (confirming and disconfirming) material from our ethnographic and interview datasets. For example, the theme ‘poor communication’ (and subthemes such as ‘failure to seek further clarification’ within this) promoted us to look for examples in our stakeholder interviews of poor communication offered as a cause of safety incidents and examples in our ethnographic notes of good communication (including someone seeking clarification). We used these wider data to add nuance to the initial list of themes.

As a final sense-checking step, the draft findings from this study were shown to each of the six safety experts in our sample and refined in the light of their comments (in some cases, for example, they considered the case to have been overfictionalised, thereby losing key clinical messages; they also gave additional examples to illustrate some of the themes we had identified, which underlined the importance of those themes).

Overview of dataset

The dataset ( table 1 ) consisted of 95 incident reports (see fictionalised examples in box 1 ), plus approximately 400 pages of extracts from interviews, ethnographic fieldnotes and workshop discussions, including situated safety practices (see examples in box 2 ), plus strategic insights relating to policy, organisation and planning of services. Notably, almost all incidents related to telephone calls.

Examples of safety incidents involving death or serious harm in remote encounters

All these cases have been systematically fictionalised as explained in the text.

Case 1 (death)

A woman in her 70s experiencing sudden breathlessness called her GP (general practitioner) surgery. The receptionist answered the phone and informed her that she would place her on the doctor’s list for an emergency call-back. The receptionist was distracted by a patient in the waiting room and did not do so. The patient deteriorated and died at home that afternoon.—NHS Resolution case, pre-2020

Case 2 (death)

An elderly woman contacted her GP after a telephone contact with the out-of-hours service, where constipation had been diagnosed. The GP prescribed laxatives without seeing the patient. The patient self-presented to the emergency department (ED) the following day in obstruction secondary to an incarcerated hernia and died in the operating theatre.—NHS Resolution case, pre-2020

Case 3 (risk to vulnerable patients)

A daughter complained that her elderly father was unable to access his GP surgery as he could not navigate the online triage system. When he phoned the surgery directly, he was directed back to the online system and told to get a relative to complete the form for him.—Complaint to NHS England, 2021

Case 4 (harm)

A woman in her first pregnancy at 28 weeks’ gestation experiencing urinary incontinence called NHS 111. She was taken down by a ‘urinary problems’ algorithm. Both the call handler and the subsequent clinician failed to recognise that she had experienced premature rupture of membranes. She later presented to the maternity department in active labour, and the opportunity to give early steroids to the premature infant was missed.—NHS Resolution case, pre-2020

Case 5 (death)

A doctor called about a 16-year-old girl with lethargy, shaking, fever and poor oral intake who had been unwell for 5 days. The doctor spoke to her older sister and advised that the child had likely glandular fever and should rest. When the parents arrived home, they called an ambulance but the child died of sepsis in the ED.—NHS Resolution case, pre-2020

Case 6 (death)

A 40-year-old woman, 6 weeks after caesarean section, contacted her GP due to shortness of breath, increased heart rate and dry cough. She was advised to get a COVID test and to dial 111 if she developed a productive cough, fever or pain. The following day she collapsed and died at home. The postmortem revealed a large pulmonary embolus. On reviewing the case, her GP surgery felt that had she been seen face to face, her oxygen saturations would have been measured and may have led to suspicion of the diagnosis.—NHS Resolution case, 2020

Case 7 (death)

A son complained that his father with diabetes and chronic kidney disease did not receive any in-person appointments over a period of 1 year. His father went on to die following a leg amputation arising from a complication of his diabetes.—Complaint to NHS England, 2021

Case 8 (death)

A 73-year-old diabetic woman with throat pain and fatigue called the surgery. She was diagnosed with a viral illness and given self-care advice. Over the next few days, she developed worsening breathlessness and was advised to do a COVID test and was given a pulse oximeter. She was found dead at home 4 days later. Postmortem found a blocked coronary artery and a large amount of pulmonary oedema. The cause of death was myocardial infarction and heart failure.—NHS Resolution case, pre-2020

Case 9 (harm)

A patient with a history of successfully treated cervical cancer developed vaginal bleeding. A diagnosis of fibroids was made and the patient received routine care by telephone over the next few months until a scan revealed a local recurrence of the original cancer.—Complaint to NHS England, 2020

Case 10 (death)

A 65-year-old female smoker with chronic cough and breathlessness presented to her GP. She was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and monitored via telephone. She did not respond to inhalers or antibiotics but continued to receive telephone monitoring without further investigation. Her symptoms continued to worsen and she called an ambulance. In the ED, she was diagnosed with heart failure and died soon after.—Complaint to NHS England, 2021

Case 11 (harm)

A 30-year-old woman presented with intermittent episodes of severe dysuria over a period of 2 years. She was given repeated courses of antibiotics but no urine was sent for culture and she was not examined. After 4 months of symptoms, she saw a private GP and was diagnosed with genital herpes.—Complaint to NHS England, 2021

Case 12 (harm)

There were repeated telephone consultations about a baby whose parents were concerned that the child was having a funny colour when feeding or crying. The 6-week check was done by telephone and at no stage was the child seen in person. Photos were sent in, but the child’s dark skin colour meant that cyanosis was not easily apparent to the reviewing clinician. The child was subsequently admitted by emergency ambulance where a significant congenital cardiac abnormality was found.—Complaint to NHS England, 2020 1

Case 13 (harm)

A 35-year-old woman in her third trimester of pregnancy had a telephone appointment with her GP about a breast lump. She was informed that this was likely due to antenatal breast changes and was not offered an in-person appointment. She attended after delivery and was referred to a breast clinic where a cancer was diagnosed.—Complaint to NHS England, 2020

Case 14 (harm)

A 63-year-old woman with a variety of physical symptoms including diarrhoea, hip girdle pain, palpitations, light-headedness and insomnia called her surgery on multiple occasions. She was told her symptoms were likely due to anxiety, but was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer and died soon after.—Complaint to NHS England, 2021

Case 15 (death)

A man with COPD with worsening shortness of breath called his GP surgery. The staff asked him if it was an emergency, and when the patient said no, scheduled him for 2 weeks later. The patient died before the appointment.—Complaint to NHS England, 2021

Examples of safety practices

Case 16 (safety incident averted by switching to video call for a sick child)

‘I’ve remembered one father that called up. Really didn’t seem to be too concerned. And was very much under-playing it and then when I did a video call, you know this child… had intercostal recession… looked really, really poorly. And it was quite scary actually that, you know, you’d had the conversation and if you’d just listened to what Dad was saying, actually, you probably wouldn’t be concerned.’—GP (general practitioner) interview 2022

Case 17 (‘red flag’ spotted by support staff member)

A receptionist was processing routine ‘administrative’ encounters sent in by patients using AccuRx (text messaging software). She became concerned about a sick note renewal request from a patient with a mental health condition. The free text included a reference to feeling suicidal, so the receptionist moved the request to the ‘red’ (urgent call-back) list. In interviews with staff, it became apparent that there had recently been heated discussion in the practice about whether support staff were adding ‘too many’ patients to the red list. After discussing cases, the doctors concluded that it should be them, not the support staff, who should absorb the risk in uncertain cases. The receptionist said that they had been told: ‘if in doubt, put it down as urgent and then the duty doctor can make a decision.’—Ethnographic fieldnotes from general practice 2023

Case 18 (‘check-in’ phone call added on busy day)

A duty doctor was working through a very busy Monday morning ‘urgent’ list. One patient had acute abdominal pain, which would normally have triggered an in-person appointment, but there were no slots and hard decisions were being made. This patient had had the pain already for a week, so the doctor judged that the general rule of in-person examination could probably be over-ridden. But instead of simply allocating to a call-back, the doctor asked a support staff member to phone the patient, ask ‘are you OK to wait until tomorrow?’ and offer basic safety-netting advice.—Ethnographic fieldnotes from general practice 2023

Case 19 (receptionist advocating on behalf of ‘angry’ walk-in patient)

A young Afghan man with limited English walked into a GP surgery on a very busy day, ignoring the prevailing policy of ‘total triage’ (make contact by phone or online in the first instance). He indicated that he wanted a same-day in-person appointment for a problem he perceived as urgent. A heated exchange occurred with the first receptionist, and the patient accused her of ‘racism’. A second receptionist of non-white ethnicity herself noted the man’s distress and suspected that there may indeed be an urgent problem. She asked the first receptionist to leave the scene, saying she wanted to ‘have a chat’ with the patient (‘the colour of my skin probably calmed him down more than anything’). Through talking to the patient and looking through his record, she ascertained that he had an acute infection that likely needed prompt attention. She tried to ‘bend the rules’ and persuade the duty doctor to see the patient, conveying the clinical information but deliberately omitting the altercation. But the first receptionist complained to the doctor (‘he called us racists’) and the doctor decided that the patient would not therefore be offered a same-day appointment. The second receptionist challenged the doctor (‘that’s not a reason to block him from getting care’). At this point, the patient cried and the second receptionist also became upset (‘this must be serious, you know’). On this occasion, despite her advocacy the patient was not given an immediate appointment.—Ethnographic fieldnotes from general practice 2022

Case 20 (long-term condition nurse visits ‘unengaged’ patients at home)

An advanced nurse practitioner talks of two older patients, each with a long-term condition, who are ‘unengaged’ and lacking a telephone. In this practice, all long-term condition reviews are routinely done by phone. She reflects that some people ‘choose not to have avenues of communication’ (ie, are deliberately not contactable), and that there may be reasons for this (‘maybe health anxiety or just old’). She has, on occasion, ‘turned up’ unannounced at the patient’s home and asked to come in and do the review, including bloods and other tests. She reflects that while most patients engage well with the service, ‘half my job is these patients who don’t engage very well.’—Ethnographic fieldnotes from digitally advanced general practice 2022

Case 21 (doctor over-riding patient’s request for telephone prescribing)

A GP trainee described a case of a 53-year-old first-generation immigrant from Pakistan, a known smoker with hypertension and diabetes. He had booked a telephone call for vomiting and sinus pain. There was no interpreter available but the man spoke some English. He said he had awoken in the night with pain in his sinuses and vomiting. All he wanted was painkillers for his sinuses. The story did not quite make sense, and the man ‘sounded unwell’. The GP told him he needed to come in and be examined. The patient initially resisted but was persuaded to come in. When the GP went to call him in, the man was visibly unwell and lying down in the waiting room. When seen in person, he admitted to shoulder pain. The GP sent him to accident and emergency (A&E) where a myocardial infarction was diagnosed.—Trainee interview 2023

Below, we describe the main themes that were evident in the safety incidents: a challenging organisational and system context, poor communication compounded by remote modalities, limited clinical information, patient and carer burden and inadequate training. Many safety incidents illustrated multiple themes—for example, poor communication and failures of clinical assessment or judgement and patient complexity and system pressures. In the detailed findings below, we illustrate why safety incidents occasionally occur and why they are usually avoided.

The context for remote consultations: system and operational challenges

Introduction of remote triage and expansion of remote consultations in UK primary care occurred at a time of unprecedented system stress (an understaffed and chronically under-resourced primary care sector, attempting to cope with a pandemic). 23 Many organisations had insufficient telephone lines or call handlers, so patients struggled to access services (eg, half of all calls to the emergency COVID-19 telephone service in March 2020 were never answered 7 ). Most remote consultations were by telephone. 27

Our safety incident dataset included examples of technically complex access routes which patients found difficult or impossible to navigate (case 3 in box 1 ) and which required non-clinical staff to make clinical or clinically related judgements (cases 4 and 15). Our ethnographic dataset contained examples of inflexible application of triage rules (eg, no face-to-face consultation unless the patient had already had a telephone call), though in other practices these rules could be over-ridden by staff using their judgement or asking colleagues. Some practices had a high rate of failed telephone call-backs (patient unobtainable).

High demand, staff shortages and high turnover of clinical and support staff made the context for remote encounters inherently risky. Several incidents were linked to a busy staff member becoming distracted (case 1). Telephone consultations, which tend to be shorter, were sometimes used in the hope of improving efficiency. Some safety incidents suggested perfunctory and transactional telephone consultations, with flawed decisions made on the basis of incomplete information (eg, case 2).

Many practices had shifted—at least to some extent—from a demand-driven system (in which every request for an appointment was met) to a capacity-driven one (in which, if a set capacity was exceeded, patients were advised to seek care elsewhere), though the latter was often used flexibly rather than rigidly with an expectation that some patients would be ‘squeezed in’. In some practices, capacity limits had been introduced to respond to escalation of demand linked to overuse of triage templates (eg, to inquire about minor symptoms).

As a result of task redistribution and new staff roles, a single episode of care for one problem often involved multiple encounters or tasks distributed among clinical and non-clinical staff (often in different locations and sometimes also across in-hours and out-of-hours providers). Capacity constraints in onward services placed pressure on primary care to manage risk in the community, leading in some cases to failure to escalate care appropriately (case 6).

Some safety incidents were linked to organisational routines that had not adapted sufficiently to remote—for example, a prescription might be issued but (for various reasons) it could not be transmitted electronically to the pharmacy. Certain urgent referrals were delayed if the consultation occurred remotely (a referral for suspected colon cancer, for example, would not be accepted without a faecal immunochemical test).

Training, supervising and inducting staff was more difficult when many were working remotely. If teams saw each other less frequently, relationship-building encounters and ‘corridor’ conversations were reduced, with knock-on impacts for individual and team learning and patient care. Those supervising trainees or allied professionals reported loss of non-verbal cues (eg, more difficult to assess how confident or distressed the trainee was).

Clinical and support staff regularly used initiative and situated judgement to compensate for an overall lack of system resilience ( box 1 ). Many practices had introduced additional safety measures such as lists of patients who, while not obviously urgent, needed timely review by a clinician. Case 17 illustrates how a rule of thumb ‘if in doubt, put it down as urgent’ was introduced and then applied to avert a potentially serious mental health outcome. Case 18 illustrates how, in the context of insufficient in-person slots to accommodate all high-risk cases, a unique safety-netting measure was customised for a patient.

Poor communication is compounded by remote modalities

Because sense data (eg, sight, touch, smell) are missing, 28 remote consultations rely heavily on the history. Many safety incidents were characterised by insufficient or inaccurate information for various reasons. Sometimes (cases 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11), the telephone consultation was too short to do justice to the problem; the clinician asked few or no questions to build rapport, obtain a full history, probe the patient’s answers for additional detail, confirm or exclude associated symptoms and inquire about comorbidities and medication. Video provided some visual cues but these were often limited to head and shoulders, and photographs were sometimes of poor quality.

Cases 2, 4, 5 and 9 illustrate the dangers of relying on information provided by a third party (another staff member or a relative). A key omission (eg, in case 5) was failing to ask why the patient was unable to come to the phone or answer questions directly.

Some remote triage conversations were conducted using an inappropriate algorithm. In case 4, for example, the call handler accepted a pregnant patient’s assumption that leaking fluid was urine when the problem was actually ruptured membranes. The wrong pathway was selected; vital questions remained unasked; and a skewed history was passed to (and accepted by) the clinician. In case 8, the patient’s complaint of ‘throat’ pain was taken literally and led to ‘viral illness’ advice, overlooking a myocardial infarction.

The cases in box 2 illustrate how staff compensated for communication challenges. In case 16, a GP plays a hunch that a father’s account of his child’s asthma may be inaccurate and converts a phone encounter to video, revealing the child’s respiratory distress. In case 19 (an in-person encounter but relevant because the altercation occurs partly because remote triage is the default modality), one receptionist correctly surmises that the patient’s angry demeanour may indicate urgency and uses her initiative and interpersonal skills to obtain additional clinical information. In case 20, a long-term condition nurse develops a labour-intensive workaround to overcome her elderly patients’ ‘lack of engagement’. More generally, we observed numerous examples of staff using both formal tools (eg, see ‘red list’ in case 17) and informal measures (eg, corridor chats) to pass on what they believed to be crucial information.

Remote consulting can provide limited clinical information

Cases 2 and 4–14 all describe serious conditions including congenital cyanotic heart disease, pulmonary oedema, sepsis, cancer and diabetic foot which would likely have been readily diagnosed with an in-person examination. While patients often uploaded still images of skin lesions, these were not always of sufficient quality to make a confident diagnosis.

Several safety incidents involved clinicians assuming that a diagnosis made on a remote consultation was definitive rather than provisional. Especially when subsequent consultations were remote, such errors could become ingrained, leading to diagnostic overshadowing and missed or delayed diagnosis (cases 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13). Patients with pre-existing conditions (especially if multiple or progressive), the very young and the elderly were particularly difficult to assess by telephone (cases 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 and 16). Clinical conditions difficult to assess remotely included possible cardiac pain (case 8), acute abdomen (case 2), breathing difficulties (cases 1, 6 and 10), vague and generalised symptoms (cases 5 and 14) and symptoms which progressed despite treatment (cases 9, 10 and 11). All these categories came up repeatedly in interviews and workshops as clinically risky.

Subtle aspects of the consultation which may have contributed to safety incidents in a telephone consultation included the inability to fully appraise the patient’s overall health and well-being (including indicators relevant to mental health such as affect, eye contact, personal hygiene and evidence of self-harm), general demeanour, level of agitation and concern, and clues such as walking speed and gait (cases 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 14). Our interviews included stories of missed cases of new-onset frailty and dementia in elderly patients assessed by telephone.

In most practices we studied, most long-term condition management was undertaken by telephone. This may be appropriate (and indeed welcome) when the patient is well and confident and a physical examination is not needed. But diabetes reviews, for example, require foot examination. Case 7 describes the deterioration and death of a patient with diabetes whose routine check-ups had been entirely by telephone. We also heard stories of delayed diagnosis of new diabetes in children when an initial telephone assessment failed to pick up lethargy, weight loss and smell of ketones, and point-of-care tests of blood or urine were not possible.

Nurses observed that remote consultations limit opportunities for demonstrating or checking the patient’s technique in using a device for monitoring or treating their condition such as an inhaler, oximeter or blood pressure machine.

Safety netting was inadequate in many remote safety incidents, even when provided by a clinician (cases 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13) but especially when conveyed by a non-clinician (case 15). Expert interviewees identified that making life-changing diagnoses remotely and starting patients on long-term medication without an in-person appointment was also risky.

Our ethnographic data showed that various measures were used to compensate for limited clinical information, including converting a phone consultation to video (case 16), asking the patient if they felt they could wait until an in-person slot was available (case 18), visiting the patient at home (case 20) and enacting a ‘if the history doesn’t make sense, bring the patient in for an in-person assessment’ rule of thumb (case 21). Out-of-hours providers added examples of rules of thumb that their services had developed over years of providing remote services, including ‘see a child face-to-face if the parent rings back’, ‘be cautious about third-party histories’, ‘visit a palliative care patient before starting a syringe driver’ and ‘do not assess abdominal pain remotely’.

Remote modalities place additional burdens on patients and carers

Given the greater importance of the history in remote consultations, patients who lacked the ability to communicate and respond in line with clinicians’ expectations were at a significant disadvantage. Several safety incidents were linked to patients’ limited fluency in the language and culture of the clinician or to specific vulnerabilities such as learning disability, cognitive impairment, hearing impairment or neurodiversity. Those with complex medical histories and comorbidities, and those with inadequate technical set-up and skills (case 3), faced additional challenges.

In many practices, in-person appointments were strictly limited according to more or less rigid triage criteria. Some patients were unable to answer the question ‘is this an emergency?’ correctly, leading to their condition being deprioritised (case 15). Some had learnt to ‘game’ the triage system (eg, online templates 29 ) by adapting their story to obtain the in-person appointment they felt they needed. This could create distrust and lead to inaccurate information on the patient record.

Our ethnographic dataset contained many examples of clinical and support staff using initiative to compensate for vulnerable patients’ inability or unwillingness to take on the additional burden of remote modalities (cases 19 and 20 in Box 2 30 31 ).

Training for remote encounters is often inadequate

Safety incidents highlighted various training needs for support staff members (eg, customer care skills, risks of making clinical judgements) and clinicians (eg, limitations of different modalities, risks of diagnostic overshadowing). Whereas out-of-hours providers gave thorough training to novice GPs (covering such things as attentiveness, rapport building, history taking, probing, attending to contextual cues and safety netting) in telephone consultations, 32–34 many in-hours clinicians had never been formally taught to consult by telephone. Case 17 illustrates how on-the-job training based on acknowledgement of contextual pressures and judicious use of rules of thumb may be very effective in averting safety incidents.

Statement of principal findings

An important overall finding from this study is that examples of deaths or serious harms associated with remote encounters in primary care were extremely rare, amounting to fewer than 100 despite an extensive search going back several years.

Analysis of these 95 safety incidents, drawn from multiple complementary sources, along with rich qualitative data from ethnography, interviews and workshops has clarified where the key risks lie in remote primary care. Remote triage and consultations expanded rapidly in the context of the COVID-19 crisis; they were occurring in the context of resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, multilayered and hard to navigate; some involved distributed work among multiple clinical and non-clinical staff. In some cases, multiple remote encounters preceded (and delayed) a needed in-person assessment.

In this high-risk context, safety incidents involving death or serious harm were rare, but those that occurred were characterised by a combination of inappropriate choice of modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate clinical pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and failure to take account of social circumstances. These led to missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex or multiple pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues and failure to respond to previous treatment, and those who (for any reason) had difficulty communicating, seemed particularly at risk.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The main strength of this study was that it combined the largest Safety I study undertaken to date of safety incidents in remote primary care (using datasets which have not previously been tapped for research), with a large, UK-wide ethnographic Safety II analysis of general practice as well as stakeholder interviews and workshops. Limitations of the safety incident sample (see final column in table 1 ) include that it was skewed towards very rare cases of death and serious harm, with relatively few opportunities for learning that did not result in serious harm. Most sources were retrospective and may have suffered from biases in documentation and recall. We also failed to obtain examples of safeguarding incidents (which would likely turn up in social care audits). While all cases involved a remote modality (or a patient who would not or could not use one), it is impossible to definitively attribute the harm to that modality.

Comparison with existing literature

This study has affirmed previous findings that processes, workflows and training in in-hours general practice have not adapted adequately to the booking, delivery and follow-up of remote consultations. 24 35 36 Safety issues can arise, for example, from how the remote consultation interfaces with other key practice routines (eg, for making urgent referrals for possible cancer). The sheer complexity and fragmentation of much remote and digital work underscores the findings from a systematic review of the importance of relational coordination (defined as ‘a mutually reinforcing process of communicating and relating for the purpose of task integration ’ (p 3) 37 ) and psychological safety (defined as ‘people’s perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a workplace ’ (p 23) 38 ) in building organisational resilience and assuring safety.

The additional workload and complexity associated with running remote appointments alongside in-person ones is cognitively demanding for staff and requires additional skills for which not all are adequately trained. 24 39 40 We have written separately about the loss of traditional continuity of care as primary care services become digitised, 41–43 and about the unmet training needs of both clinical and support staff for managing remote and digital encounters. 24

Our findings also resonate with research showing that remote modalities can interfere with communicative tasks such as rapport building, establishing a therapeutic relationship and identifying non-verbal cues such as tearfulness 35 36 44 ; that remote consultations tend to be shorter and feature less discussion, information gathering and safety netting 45–48 ; and that clinical assessment in remote encounters may be challenging, 27 49 50 especially when physical examination is needed. 35 36 51 These factors may rarely contribute to incorrect or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of the seriousness or urgency of a case, and failure to identify a deteriorating trajectory. 35 36 52–54

Even when systems seem adequate, patients may struggle to navigate them. 23 30 31 This finding aligns with an important recent review of cognitive load theory in the context of remote and digital health services: because such services are more cognitively demanding for patients, they may widen inequities of access. 55 Some patients lack navigating and negotiating skills, access to key technologies 13 36 or confidence in using them. 30 35 The remote encounter may require the patient to have a sophisticated understanding of access and cross-referral pathways, interpret their own symptoms (including making judgements about severity and urgency), obtain and use self-monitoring technologies (such as a blood pressure machine or oximeter) and convey these data in medically meaningful ways (eg, by completing algorithmic triage forms or via a telephone conversation). 30 56 Furthermore, the remote environment may afford fewer opportunities for holistically evaluating, supporting or safeguarding the vulnerable patient, leading to widening inequities. 13 35 57 Previous work has also shown that patients with pre-existing illness, complex comorbidities or high-risk states, 58 59 language non-concordance, 13 35 inability to describe their symptoms (eg, due to autism 60 ), extremes of age 61 and those with low health or system literacy 30 are more difficult to assess remotely.

Lessons for safer care

Many of the contributory factors to safety incidents in remote encounters have been suggested previously, 35 36 and align broadly with factors that explain safety incidents more generally. 53 62 63 This new study has systematically traced how upstream factors may, very rarely, combine to contribute to avoidable human tragedies—and also how primary care teams develop local safety practices and cultures to help avoid them. Our study provides some important messages for practices and policymakers.

First, remote encounters in general practice are mostly occurring in a system designed for in-person encounters, so processes and workflows may work less well.

Second, because the remote encounter depends more on history taking and dialogue, verbal communication is even more mission critical. Working remotely under system pressures and optimising verbal communication should both be priorities for staff training.

Third, the remote environment may increase existing inequities as patients’ various vulnerabilities (eg, extremes of age, poverty, language and literacy barriers, comorbidities) make remote communication and assessment more difficult. Our study has revealed impressive efforts from staff to overcome these inequities on an individual basis; some of these workarounds may become normalised and increase efficiency, but others are labour intensive and not scalable.

A final message from this study is that clinical assessment provides less information when a physical examination (and even a basic visual overview) is not possible. Hence, the remote consultation has a higher degree of inherent uncertainty. Even when processes have been optimised (eg, using high-quality triage to allocate modality), but especially when they have not, diagnoses and assessments of severity or urgency should be treated as more provisional and revisited accordingly. We have given examples in the Results section of how local adaptation and rule breaking bring flexibility into the system and may become normalised over time, leading to the creation of locally understood ‘rules of thumb’ which increase safety.

Overall, these findings underscore the need to share learning and develop guidance about the drivers of risk, how these play out in different kinds of remote encounters and how to develop and strengthen Safety II approaches to mitigate those risks. Table 2 shows proposed mitigations at staff, process and system levels, as well as a preliminary list of suggestions for patients, which could be refined with patient input using codesign methods. 64

Reducing safety incidents in remote primary care

Unanswered questions and future research

This study has helped explain where the key risks lie in remote primary care encounters, which in our dataset were almost all by telephone. It has revealed examples of how front-line staff create and maintain a safety culture, thereby helping to prevent such incidents. We suggest four key avenues for further research. First, additional ethnographic studies in general practice might extend these findings and focus on specific subquestions (eg, how practices identify, capture and learn from near-miss incidents). Second, ethnographic studies of out-of-hours services, which are mostly telephone by default, may reveal additional elements of safety culture from which in-hours general practice could learn. Third, the rise in asynchronous e-consultations (in which patients complete an online template and receive a response by email) raises questions about the safety of this new modality which could be explored in mixed-methods studies including quantitative analysis of what kinds of conditions these consultations cover and qualitative analysis of the content and dynamics of the interaction. Finally, our findings suggest that the safety of new clinically related ‘assistant’ roles in general practice should be urgently evaluated, especially when such staff are undertaking remote assessment or remote triage.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was granted by the East Midlands—Leicester South Research Ethics Committee and UK Health Research Authority (September 2021, 21/EM/0170 and subsequent amendments). Access to the NHS Resolution dataset was obtained by secondment of the RP via honorary employment contract, where she worked with staff to de-identify and fictionalise relevant cases. The Remote by Default 2 study (referenced in main text) was co-designed by patients and lay people; it includes a diverse patient panel. Oversight was provided by an independent external advisory group with a lay chair and patient representation. A person with lived experience of a healthcare safety incident (NS) is a co-author on this paper and provided input to data analysis and writing up, especially the recommendations for patients in table 2 .

Acknowledgments

We thank the participating organisations for cooperating with this study and giving permission to use fictionalised safety incidents. We thank the participants in the ethnographic study (patients, practice staff, policymakers, other informants) who gave generously of their time and members of the study advisory group.

Sarbadhikari SN ,
Jacob AG , et al
Hall Dykgraaf S ,
Desborough J ,
de Toca L , et al
Koonin LM ,
Tsang CA , et al
England NHS
Papoutsi C ,
Greenhalgh T
↵ Healthcare safety investigation branch: NHS 111’s response to callers with COVID-19-related symptoms during the pandemic . 2022 . Available : https://www.hsib.org.uk/investigations-and-reports/response-of-nhs-111-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/nhs-111s-response-to-callers-with-covid-19-related-symptoms-during-the-pandemic [Accessed 25 Jun 2023 ].
Royal College of General Practitioners
NHS Confederation
Gupta PP , et al
Panagioti M ,
Keers RN , et al
Panesar SS ,
deSilva D ,
Carson-Stevens A , et al
Campbell JL ,
Britten N ,
Green C , et al
Huibers L , et al
Hollnagel E ,
Braithwaite J
Institute of Medicine (US)
Jerak-Zuiderent S
Greenhalgh T ,
Alvarez Nishio A , et al
Hemmings N , et al
Hughes G , et al
Salisbury C , et al
Berens E-M ,
Nowak P , et al
Macdonald S ,
Browne S , et al
Edwards PJ ,
Bennett-Britton I ,
Ridd MJ , et al
Warren C , et al
Challiner J , et al
Wieringa S ,
Greenhalgh T , et al
Rushforth A , et al
Edmondson AC ,
Eddison N ,
Healy A , et al
Paparini S , et al
Byng R , et al
Moore L , et al
McKinstry B ,
Hammersley V ,
Burton C , et al
Gafaranga J ,
McKinstry B
Seuren LM ,
Wherton J , et al
Donaghy E ,
Parker R , et al
Sharma SC ,
Thakker A , et al
Johnsen TM ,
Norberg BL ,
Kristiansen E , et al
Wherton J ,
Ferwerda R ,
Tijssen R , et al
NHS Resolution
Marincowitz C ,
Bath P , et al
Antonio MG ,
Williamson A ,
Kameswaran V , et al
Oudshoorn N
Winters D ,
Newman T , et al
Huibers L ,
Renaud V , et al
↵ Remote consultations . n.d. Available : https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-hub/remote-consultations
Doherty M ,
Neilson S ,
O’Sullivan J , et al
Carson-Stevens A ,
Hibbert P ,
Williams H , et al
Edwards A ,
Powell C , et al
Morris RL ,
Fraser SW ,

X @dakinfrancesca, @trishgreenhalgh

Contributors RP led the Safety I analysis with support from AC. The Safety II analysis was part of a wider ethnographic study led by TG and SS, on which all other authors undertook fieldwork and contributed data. TG and RP wrote the paper, with all other authors contributing refinements. All authors checked and approved the final manuscript. RP is guarantor.

Funding Funding was from NIHR HS&DR (grant number 132807) (Remote by Default 2 study) and NIHR School for Primary Care Research (grant number 594) (ModCons study), plus an NIHR In-Practice Fellowship for RP.

Competing interests RP was National Professional Advisor, Care Quality Commission 2017–2022, where her role included investigation of safety issues.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Editorial Examining telehealth through the Institute of Medicine quality domains: unanswered questions and research agenda Timothy C Guetterman Lorraine R Buis BMJ Quality & Safety 2024; 33 552-555 Published Online First: 09 May 2024. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016872

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Author Biographies
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Towards the wall or the bridge a case study of host–guest symbiosis in a chinese heritage tourism site.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. what is going on inside heritage tourist destinations as a symbiotic system, 2.2. who plays the role host–guest interaction in heritage tourism destinations, 2.3. how does symbiosis proceed a symbiosis framework for heritage tourist destinations based on host–guest interactions, 3. hypotheses development, 3.1. emotional solidarity and the sense of community belonging, 3.2. the sense of community belonging and willingness to participate in tourism, 4. materials and methods, 4.1. study area, 4.2. data sources and methodology, 4.2.1. stage i qualitative, 4.2.2. stage ii quantitative, 5.1. stage i, 5.1.1. identity qualification.

Every household starts stocking up on fish and ingredients to make crispy fish after 1 October, with too much work to do to prepare it for sale at the end of the year. (V02)

While ancient cities exist worldwide, Guangfu is the only one combining the water culture and Tai Chi culture. There are many young and older people playing Tai Chi at 5 o’clock, Foreigners also learn to play Tai Chi ( Figure 5 ). (V01)

Click here to enlarge figure

We don’t do the specialties such as crispy fish, as there are too many people doing it, and the competition is fierce. (V11)

5.1.2. Bodily Co-Presence

From 6 a.m. to 8 a.m., most of the shops on the main commercial streets are not open for business, with almost no interaction between residents and tourists, presenting an ordinary scene of Guangfu;
From 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., a number of tourists and residents go out for activities, and it is the peak period for great interaction between residents and tourists.
After 8 p.m., residents start to rest and are less active. Most tourists are day-trippers and rarely stay overnight, so residents and tourists seldom have interactions.

5.1.3. Common Focus

5.2. stage ii, 5.2.1. sample description, 5.2.2. reliability test and cfa, 5.2.3. the results of hypothesis testing, 6. discussion, 6.1. theoretical implications, 6.2. practical implications, 7. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Cho, H.D. Relationship between tourism and heritage from a tourist perspective: Synergy, complementarity and antagonism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021 , 25 , 1557–1569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Loulanski, T.; Loulanski, V. The sustainable integration of cultural heritage and tourism: A meta-study. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011 , 19 , 837–862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Giliberto, F.; Labadi, S. Re-imagining heritage tourism in post-COVID Sub-Saharan Africa: Local stakeholders’ perspectives and future directions. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 4339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tsai, S.P. Augmented reality enhancing place satisfaction for heritage tourism marketing. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019 , 23 , 1078–1083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jiang, S.; Moyle, B.; Yung, R.; Tao, L.; Scott, N. Augmented reality and the enhancement of memorable tourism experiences at heritage sites. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022 , 26 , 242–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ji, F.; Wang, F.; Wu, B. How does virtual tourism involvement impact the social education effect of cultural heritage? J. Destin. Mark. Manage. 2023 , 28 , 100779. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Allaberganov, A.; Catterall, P. Using social exchange theory to examine residents’ responses to heritage tourism: Case studies of Samarqand and Bukhara in Uzbekistan. J. Herit. Tour. 2023 , 18 , 846–863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Qu, C.; Zhang, C.; Shen, S.; Olsen, D.H. Heritage conservation and communities’ sense of deprivation in tourism: The case of the Hani community in Yunnan, China. Tour. Geogr. 2022 , 25 , 881–898. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Dupre, K.; McIlwaine, C. The impacts of world cultural heritage site designation and heritage tourism on community livelihoods: A Chinese case study. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022 , 43 , 100994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Murphy, P.E.; Murphy, A.E. Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps ; Channel View Publications: Buffalo, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Collins, R. Interaction Ritual Chains ; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Leiper, N. The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Ann. Tourism Res. 1979 , 6 , 390–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Qian, X.S.; Yu, J.Y.; Dai, R.W. A new field of science—Open to a complex giant system and its methodology. Chin. J. Nat. 1990 , 1 , 3–10. [ Google Scholar ]
Sanz-Ibáñez, C.; Anton Clavé, S. The evolution of destinations: Towards an evolutionary and relational economic geography approach. Tour. Geogr. 2014 , 16 , 563–579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ahmdajina, V. Symbiosis: An Introduction to Biological Associations ; University Press of New England: Hanover, NH, USA, 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
Li, S.Q. Symbiosis Construction Theory Outline ; China Social Science Press: Xi’an, China, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Yuan, C.Q. Symbiosis Theory: With Concurrent Discussion on Small-Scale Economy ; Economic Science Press: Beijing, China, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
Hu, S.J. Social Symbiosis. Hubei Soc. Sci. 2000 , 3 , 11–12. [ Google Scholar ]
Sørensen, E.; Torfing, J. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Admin Soc. 2011 , 43 , 842–868. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Douglas, A.E. The symbiotic habit ; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
Hu, H.; Zhuang, T.H. On the integration development of rural industry from the perspective of symbiosis theory: Symbiosis mechanism, practical dilemma and promotion strategy. Issues Agr. Econ. 2020 , 8 , 68–76. [ Google Scholar ]
Stringer, P.F.; Pearce, P.L. Toward a symbiosis of social psychology and tourism studies. Ann. Tourism Res. 1984 , 11 , 5–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Liu, W.; Wang, T.; Tan, X.J. Research on the scenic area-based rural tourism planning from the perspective of regional coordinated development: Taking Wuxi County of Chongqing as an example. Dev. Small Cities Towns 2021 , 3 , 32–40. [ Google Scholar ]
Cheng, M.Y.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, N. Study on the spatial pattern and mechanism of rural population-land-industry coordinating development in Huang-Huai-Hai Area. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2019 , 74 , 1576–1589. [ Google Scholar ]
Iguman, S. Re-interpretation of natural and cultural heritage symbiosis as a tool for sustainable tourism development in Belgrade. In Proceedings of the 2015 Sitcon-Singidunum International Tourism Conference, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia, 25 September 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Yang, D. A study on the symbiosis between tourism scenic spot and local community development: A case study of Shawan Ancient Town. Int. Bus. Manag. 2016 , 13 , 22–26. [ Google Scholar ]
Ajagunna, I.; Pinnock, F.; Amode, T.M. Tourism development and logistics in the Caribbean: Will there be a symbiotic relationship? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2017 , 9 , 116–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lu, X.L.; Sun, Z.W.; Ma, S.M. The symbiotic relationship and the polycentric cooperative development countermeasures of urban tourism in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei metropolitan. Econ. Geogr. 2016 , 36 , 181–187. [ Google Scholar ]
Xu, C.X.; She, B.L. Market dynamic mechanisms in the symbiosis between tourist destinations. Tour. Trib. 2016 , 31 , 96–105. [ Google Scholar ]
Lian, Y.Q. A review of foreign literature of innovation network and regional symbiotic innovation strategy. Hum. Geogr. 2016 , 31 , 26–32. [ Google Scholar ]
Su, J.; Sun, J.X. Microcosmic research on the impact of tourism on social relations changes in ethnic communities: Taking Basha Miao village as an example. Tour. Trib. 2017 , 32 , 87–95. [ Google Scholar ]
Weng, X.; Lv, X.; Li, X. Study on the implementation mechanism of symbiosis theory used in economic field. Econ. 2016 , 5 , 56–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Berno, T. When is a guest a guest? Cook Islanders conceptualize tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 1999 , 26 , 565–675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dann, G.; Cohen, E. Sociology and tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 1991 , 18 , 155–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cohen, E. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 1988 , 15 , 371–386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Van den Berghe, P.L.; Keyes, C.F. Introduction tourism and re-created ethnicity. Ann. Tourism Res. 1984 , 3 , 343–352. [ Google Scholar ]
Maoz, D. The mutual gaze. Ann. Tourism Res. 2006 , 33 , 221–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Urry, J. The Tourist Gaze , 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Hu, H.X. Gazing or dialogue: Rethinking about the theory of tourists’ gaze. Tour. Trib. 2010 , 25 , 72–76. [ Google Scholar ]
Feng, J.C. The dilemma and the way out of the traditional villages—Traditional villages are another kind of cultural heritage. Forum Folk Cult. 2013 , 1 , 7–12. [ Google Scholar ]
Coghlan, A.; Weiler, B. Examining transformative processes in volunteer tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018 , 21 , 567–582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Graburn, N.H.H. Tourism: The Sacred Journey ; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
Kim, S.M. International Tourism in Korea: Barriers and Challenges. Int. J. Tour. Sci. 2003 , 3 , 151–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Woosnam, K.M. Using emotional solidarity to explain residents’ attitudes about tourism and tourism development. J. Travel. Res. 2012 , 51 , 315–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Woosnam, K.M.; Norman, W.C.; Ying, T.Y. Exploring the theoretical framework of emotional solidarity between residents and tourists. J. Travel. Res. 2009 , 48 , 245–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kim, D.J.; Zhang, D. The effects of sense of presence, sense of belonging, and cognitive absorption on satisfaction and user loyalty toward an immersive 3D virtual world. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on E-Business, Berlin, Germany, 15 December 2009; pp. 30–43. [ Google Scholar ]
Du, Z.B.; Su, Q. Study on the relationship between the community participation of rural tourism, residents’ perceived tourism impact and sense of community involvement—A case study of Anji rural tourism destination, Zhejiang Province. Tour. Trib. 2011 , 26 , 65–70. [ Google Scholar ]
Liu, Q. Study on relationship of customer value and customer sense of belong. J. Jinan Univ. 2008 , 30 , 65–71. [ Google Scholar ]
Coordinated Development of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/gjzl/jjjxtfz/201911/t20191127_1213171.html (accessed on 24 July 2024).
The Development and Reform Commission Issued a Notice on the Development Plan of the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-01/05/content_5156816.htm (accessed on 24 July 2024).
Handan 2023 Statistical Snapshot. Available online: https://www.hd.gov.cn/hdzfxxgk/gszbm/auto23694/202402/t20240202_2019955.html (accessed on 24 July 2024).
The Only One in the Province! Guangfu Ancient City on the List. Available online: https://www.hdyn.gov.cn/doc/2024/02/20/114406.shtml (accessed on 7 August 2024).
Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches ; Sage publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
Khoo-Lattimore, C.; Mura, P.; Yung, R. The time has come: A systematic literature review of mixed methods research in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019 , 22 , 1531–1550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989 , 14 , 50–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
King, N.; Horrocks, C. Interviews in Qualitative Research ; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
Cui, L. A co citation cluster analysis to highly cited in special documentation. Inf. Stud. Theory A 1996 , 1 , 46–48. [ Google Scholar ]
Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis , 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Joo, D.; Tasci, A.D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Maruyama, N.U.; Hollas, C.R.; Aleshinloye, K.D. Residents’ attitude towards domestic tourists explained by contact, emotional solidarity and social distance. Tourism Manag. 2018 , 64 , 245–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gursoy, D.; Rutherford, D.G. Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved structural model. Ann Tourism Res. 2004 , 31 , 495–516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
McCool, S.F.; Martin, S.R. Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. J Travel Res. 1994 , 32 , 29–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lv, W.Q. A study on residents’ participation behavior in sustainable heritage tourism: From the perspective of planned behavior theory. Soc Sci. 2019 , 12 , 89–100. [ Google Scholar ]
Qin, H. Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Libr. Trends 1999 , 48 , 133–159. [ Google Scholar ]
Garson, D. Testing Statistical Assumptions ; Statistical Publishing Associates: Hillsborough, NC, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
Li, D.; Wang, Y.Q.; Chen, Y.T.; Huang, D.; Dai, C.X. Research on subjective well-being detection and pro-tourism behavior of residents in community embedded destination: The conditional effect of positive and negative perception. Areal Res. Dev. 2020 , 39 , 109–114. [ Google Scholar ]
Serene, T.; Vincent, W. Residents’ discrimination against tourists. Ann. Tourism Res. 2021 , 88 , 1–4. [ Google Scholar ]

No.	Gender	Identity	Date of Interview	Location of Interview	Duration
V01	Male	Ticket checking staff	9 June 2022	The entrance	32 min
V02	Female	Snack bar owner	11 June 2022	Canton Street East	18 min
V03	Male	Clothing shop owner	11 June 2022	Canton Street East	40 min
V04	Female	Milk tea shop owner	11 June 2022	Canton Street East	25 min
V05	Male	Returning villagers	12 June 2022	Inside the Ancient City	47 min
T01	Female	Tourist (from Handan)	9 June 2022	East Gate	9 min
T02	Male and female	A couple (from Handan)	11 June 2022	East Gate	24 min
T03	Male and female	Family (from Henan)	12 June 2022	East Gate	35 min
T04	Male	Tourists (aged 60+)	12 June 2022	South Gate	7 min
T05	Female	Tourist (from Handan)	13 June 2022	South Gate	16 min

Items	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Items	Frequency	Percentage (%)

Male	180	58.3%	Tourism practitioners	241	78%
Female	129	41.7%	Students	21	6.8%
			Government/Enterprise Workers	19	6.2%
Under 18	9	2.9%	Professionals	14	4.5%
18–29	62	20.1%	Technicians	8	2.6%
30–39	164	53.1%	Others	6	1.9%
40–49	57	18.4%
50–59	10	3.2%	Less than 3000 RMB	69	22.3%
Over 60	7	2.3%	3000–5000 RMB	74	24%
			5001–7000 RMB	48	15.5%
Primary and below	20	6.5%	7001–8000 RMB	45	14.6%
Junior high school	160	51.8%	8001–10,000 RMB	40	12.9%
High School	70	22.6%	10,001 RMB and above	33	10.7%
Undergraduate and above	59	19.1%

Variables	Mean	S.D.	Skewness	Kurtosis	Estimate	AVE	C.R.	Cronbach’s Alpha
						0.635	0.874	0.874
I am proud to have visitors come to Guangfu. (WN 1)	3.58	1.311	−0.647	−0.706	0.856
I feel the community benefits from having visitors in Guangfu.(WN2)	3.66	1.35	−0.749	−0.643	0.757
I appreciate visitors for the contribution they make to the local economy. (WN3)	3.74	1.364	−0.758	−0.675	0.805
I treat visitors fairly in Guangfu. (WN4)	3.76	1.283	−0.764	−0.553	0.765
						0.696	0.872	0.871
I feel close to some visitors I have met in Guangfu. (EC1)	3.75	1.26	−0.81	−0.358	0.763
I have made friends with some visitors in Guangfu. (EC2)	3.69	1.315	−0.707	−0.691	0.88
I enjoy the process of interacting with tourists.(EC3)	3.69	1.285	−0.672	−0.699	0.855
						0.604	0.859	0.858
I identify with visitors in Guangfu. (SU1)	3.66	1.077	−0.727	0.104	0.758
I have a lot in common with Guangfu’s visitors.(SU2)	3.74	0.992	−0.846	0.489	0.776
I feel affection towards visitors in Guangfu. (SU3)	3.79	1.025	−0.699	0.098	0.737
I understand visitors in Guangfu. (SU4)	3.74	1.049	−0.782	0.129	0.834
						0.611	0.862	0.864
I like Guangfu. (CB1)	3.8	1.259	−0.701	−0.729	0.857
I am very concerned about the construction of Guangfu. (CB2)	3.85	1.216	−0.891	−0.28	0.765
I do not want to move away from Guangfu. (CB3)	3.69	1.262	−0.716	−0.506	0.719
I am on good terms with the other members in Guangfu. (CB4)	3.69	1.262	−0.638	−0.71	0.78
						0.642	0.877	0.876
I am willing to participate in resource conservation and environmental monitoring in Guangfu. (WPT1)	3.53	1.234	−0.377	−0.886	0.824
I am willing to provide high quality services to the tourists in Guangfu. (WPT2)	3.57	1.296	−0.571	−0.813	0.74
I am willing to be involved in improving the quality of life of community residents in Guangfu. (WPT3)	3.67	1.243	−0.533	−0.875	0.835
I am willing to participate in the transmission and preservation of national culture in Guangfu.(WPT4)	3.6	1.176	−0.451	−0.863	0.802

	Welcoming Nature	Emotional Closeness	Sympathetic Understanding	A sense of Community Belonging	Willingness to Participate in Tourism
Welcoming nature	0.797 *
Emotional closeness	0.486	0.834 *
Sympathetic understanding	0.329	0.345	0.777 *
A sense of community belonging	0.590	0.579	0.407	0.781 *
Willingness to participate in tourism	0.372	0.398	0.325	0.436	0.801 *

Hypothesis Paths	Estimate	Hypothesis
H1a: Welcoming nature → A sense of community belonging	0.59 ***	H1a: supported
H1b: Emotional closeness → A sense of community belonging	0.579 *	H1b: supported
H1c: Sympathetic understanding → A sense of community belonging	0.407 *	H1c: supported
H2a: A sense of community belonging → Willingness to participate in tourism	0.436 ***	H2a: supported

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Tao, H.; Chen, X.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Z. Towards the Wall or the Bridge? A Case Study of Host–Guest Symbiosis in a Chinese Heritage Tourism Site. Land 2024 , 13 , 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081315

Tao H, Chen X, Sun Y, Wang Z. Towards the Wall or the Bridge? A Case Study of Host–Guest Symbiosis in a Chinese Heritage Tourism Site. Land . 2024; 13(8):1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081315

Tao, Hui, Xiaoying Chen, Yehong Sun, and Zhe Wang. 2024. "Towards the Wall or the Bridge? A Case Study of Host–Guest Symbiosis in a Chinese Heritage Tourism Site" Land 13, no. 8: 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081315

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

IMAGES

A Guide To Using Qualitative Research Methodology
Qualitative Research: Definition, Types, Methods and Examples
What Methods Are Used In Qualitative Research at larryjandrew blog
Qualitative Research Methods: An Introduction
Understanding Qualitative Research: An In-Depth Study Guide
Qualitative Sociology can be defined as

COMMENTS

Qualitative Methods in Sociological Research
Introduction. Qualitative research methods have a long and distinguished history within sociology. They trace their roots back to Max Weber's call for an interpretive understanding of action. Today, qualitative sociology encompasses a variety of specific procedures for collecting data, ranging from life history interviews to direct ...
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being "qualitative," the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term "qualitative." Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered ...
What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines
Abstract. This guide explains the focus, rigor, and relevance of qualitative research, highlighting its role in dissecting complex social phenomena and providing in-depth, human-centered insights. The guide also examines the rationale for employing qualitative methods, underscoring their critical importance. An exploration of the methodology ...
Step-by-Step Guide: Qualitative Research Methods in Sociology
Overall, the key characteristics of qualitative research underline its strength in producing meaningful and contextually rich insights into societal behavior. The Importance of Qualitative Methods in Sociology. Qualitative sociology methods play a crucial role in understanding human behavior and societal dynamics.
2.2 Research Methods
This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. ... As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set ...
What is Qualitative in Research
The editors of Qualitative Sociology have given us the opportunity not only to receive comments by a group of particularly qualified scholars who engage with our text in a constructive fashion, but also to reply, and thereby to clarify our position. We have read the four essays that comment on our article What is qualitative in qualitative research (Aspers and Corte 2019) with great interest.
Principles of Sociological Inquiry
The author of Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Amy Blackstone, started envisioning this textbook while sitting in her own undergraduate sociology research methods class. She enjoyed the material but wondered about its relevance to her everyday life and future plans (the idea that one day she would be teaching such a class hadn't yet occurred to her).
Home
The journal Qualitative Sociology is dedicated to the qualitative interpretation and analysis of social life. The journal offers both theoretical and analytical research, and publishes manuscripts based on research methods such as interviewing, participant observation, ethnography, historical analysis, content analysis and others which do not rely primarily on numerical data.
Sage Research Methods
It will be a valuable source for those who teach qualitative research methods in not only the social sciences but also in other disciplines, including health science. I wholeheartedly recommend this book' - Australian Journal of Primary Health. Qualitative Research in Sociology offers a hands-on guide to doing qualitative research in sociology.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative researchers findings are collected through a variety of methods, and often, a researcher will use at least two or several of the following while conducting a qualitative study. Direct observation: With direct observation, a researcher studies people as they go about their daily lives without participating or interfering.
Introduction to qualitative research methods
INTRODUCTION. Qualitative research methods refer to techniques of investigation that rely on nonstatistical and nonnumerical methods of data collection, analysis, and evidence production. Qualitative research techniques provide a lens for learning about nonquantifiable phenomena such as people's experiences, languages, histories, and cultures.
How do you know? Seven theses on qualitative sociology as theory and method
In its seven theses, this article discusses: (a) how different qualitative sociology is from other approaches; (b) the role of 'casing' in generating both units of analysis and settings; (c) the theoretical and empirical work of adjudicating what some emergent phenomena is a case of; (d) the 'modelization' through writing of our case as a research object; (e) the rhetorical ...
(PDF) What is Qualitative in Research
Qualitative research method is a research approach that focuses on a deep understanding of phenomena, processes, and contexts in a particular context (Aspers & Corte, 2021) [5] . Literature study ...
Qualitative Research in Sociology
Qualitative Research in Sociology offers a hands-on guide to doing qualitative research in sociology. It provides an introductory survey of the methodological and theoretical dimensions of qualitative research as practiced by those interested in the study of social life. Through a detailed yet concise explanation, the reader is shown how these methods work and how their outcomes may be ...
Qualitative Research Definition and Methods
Updated on February 02, 2020. Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from these data that help understand social life through the study of targeted populations or places. People often frame it in opposition to quantitative research, which uses ...
Research Methods in Sociology
An introduction to research methods in Sociology covering quantitative, qualitative, primary and secondary data and defining the basic types of research method including social surveys, experiments, interviews, participant observation, ethnography and longitudinal studies. Why do social research? The simple answer is that without it, our knowledge of the social world is limited to our ...
Qualitative Research
Qualitative Research. Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on exploring and understanding people's beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. It seeks to answer research questions through the examination of subjective data, such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and textual analysis.
9.1 Qualitative research: What is it and when should it be used?
Qualitative research has its roots in anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and semiotics, and has been available since the early 19th century, long before quantitative statistical techniques were employed. Distinctions from Quantitative Research. In qualitative research, the role of the researcher receives critical attention.
Qualitative Methods
450 Jane Stanford Way Building 120, Room 160 Stanford, CA, 94305-2047. Phone: 650-723-3956 sociology [at] stanford.edu (sociology[at]stanford[dot]edu) Campus Map
(PDF) Qualitative Research in Sociology
This article presents a comprehensive exploration of commonly utilized qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Covering essential methodologies such as ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, case study, content analysis, and ethnomethodology, the article delves into their ontological and epistemological foundations, objectives, applications, and specific approaches to ...
Qualitative Methods
SOCIOLOGY 5060. This course is an in-depth examination of qualitative research methods in sociology. The goals of this course are as follows: (1) to examine the epistemology, politics, practice, and ethics of qualitative methods; (2) to explore the strengths and limitations of these approaches; and (3) to develop the skills to design, collect ...
"Qualitative Research" Is a Moving Target
The term "qualitative" is best considered a disciplinary convenience, not a careful index of research practice. Viewed closely and historically, qualitative research is a shifting, expanding collection of techniques and logics of inquiry, though for curricular reasons we often define that collection by techniques. An effort to discern a single, shared definition of "qualitative ...
18. Qualitative data collection
Powerful concepts in social science: Preparing for focus groups, qualitative research methods. Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Nyumba et al. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation.
Qualitative Research: 7 Methods and Examples
Qualitative research methods are better suited when you want to understand the complexities of your user's problems and uncover the underlying motives beneath their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Quantitative research excels in giving you numerical data, helping you gain a statistical view of your user's attitudes, identifying trends, and ...
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
A fourth issue is that the "implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm" (Goertz and Mahoney 2012:9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving ...
Qualitative Vs Quantitative
Tags: apa, qualitative_research, quantitative_research_methods, social work, social work research Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .
Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods
Sociology document from Southern New Hampshire University, 5 pages, QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods Sherri Black Southern New Hampshire University CJ675: Data Driven Decisions Professor Beshears Quantitative and Qualitative Res
Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod
Methods Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II ...
Land
The close connection between community residents and tourists in heritage tourism sites strengthens the relationship between people and places. To explore the mechanisms of host-guest interaction and the driving factors of residents' willingness to participate in tourism in heritage tourism destinations, this study adopts a mixed-method approach combining qualitative research and ...

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Qualitative Methods in Sociological Research

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Qualitative Methods in Sociological Research by Jeff Sallaz LAST REVIEWED: 27 July 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 27 July 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0043

Extract insights from Customer & Employee Interviews. At Scale.

Understanding Qualitative Sociology Methods

Key Characteristics of Qualitative Research

The Importance of Qualitative Methods in Sociology

Conducting Qualitative Research in Sociology

Planning Your Qualitative Study

Selecting Appropriate Qualitative Methods

Conclusion: Mastering Qualitative Sociology Methods

Turn interviews into actionable insights

Coding for qualitative research: AI-powered tools

Process of data analysis in qualitative research explained

2.2 Research Methods

Field Research

Sociology in the Real World

Participant Observation

Ethnography

Institutional Ethnography

Sociological Research

Experiments

Secondary Data Analysis

Principles of Sociological Inquiry – Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

University Library

Qualitative Research

Ethnography

Methods of Qualitative Research

An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods

Key Takeaways

Pros and Cons

Research Methods in Sociology – An Introduction

Why do social research?

Subjective and Objective Knowledge in Social Research

Sources and types of data

Four main primary research methods

Social Surveys

Experiments

Participant Observation

Ethnographies and Case Studies

Longitudinal Studies

Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle

Share this:

Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Qualitative Research

Qualitative Research Methods

One-to-One Interview

Focus Groups

Ethnographic Studies

Text Analysis

Process of Observation

Record Keeping

Qualitative Research Analysis Methods

Thematic Analysis

Content Analysis

Discourse Analysis

Grounded Theory Analysis

Narrative Analysis

Phenomenological Analysis

Comparative Analysis

Applications of Qualitative Research

How to Conduct Qualitative Research

Examples of Qualitative Research

Purpose of Qualitative Research

When to use Qualitative Research

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Advantages of Qualitative Research

Limitations of Qualitative Research

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Ethnographic Research -Types, Methods and Guide

Research Methods – Types, Examples and Guide