Nature OF Qualitative research PDF

Preview

Summary

It deals with definition of qualitative research, its characteristics and its basic assumption as well as how it is different from quantitative research....

Description

Qualitative research is a form of social inquiry that focuses on the way people interpret and make sense of their experiences and the world in which they live. In the words of Atkinson et al. (2001), it is an “umbrella term”, and a number of different approaches exist within the wider framework of this type of research. Most of these have the same aim: to understand the social reality of individuals, groups and cultures. Researchers use qualitative approaches to explore the behaviour, perspectives, feelings and experiences of people and what lies at the core of their lives. Specifically, ethnographers focus on culture and customs grounded theorists investigate social processes and interaction, while phenomenologists consider the meanings of experience and describe the life world. All of these come under the umbrella of the qualitative research paradigm. The basis of qualitative research lies in the interpretive approach to social reality and in the description of the lived experience of human beings. A great strength of qualitative research is that it cannot be neatly pigeon-holed and reduced to a simple and prescriptive set of principles. Qualitative research is grounded in a philosophical position which is broadly ‘interpretivist’ in the sense that it is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced, produced or constituted. While different versions of qualitative research might understand or approach these elements in different ways (for example, focusing on social meanings, or interpretations, or practices, or discourses, or processes, or constructions), all will see at least some of these as meaningful elements in a complex – possibly multi-layered and textured – social world. It is based on methods of data generation which are both flexible and sensitive to the social context in which data are produced (rather than rigidly standardized or structured, or entirely abstracted from ‘real-life’ contexts). It is based on methods of analysis, explanation and argument building which involve understandings of complexity, detail and context. Qualitative research aims to produce rounded and contextual understandings on the basis of rich, nuanced and detailed data. There is more emphasis on ‘holistic’ forms of analysis and explanation in this sense, than on charting surface patterns, trends and correlations. Qualitative research often does use some form of quantification, but statistical forms of analysis are not seen as central. For Denzin and Lincoln, the current state of qualitative research can be read as follows: ‘The field of qualitative research is defined by a series of tensions, contradictions, and hesitations. This tension works back and forth between the broad, doubting postmodern sensibility and the more certain, more traditional positivist, postpositivist, and naturalistic conceptions’ (1998: 31). Others are more critical of the idea that postmodernism is ‘broad and doubting’ (or indeed that postpositivism is always so certain). They suggest instead that some

expressions of postmodernism are ironically rather dogmatic in their assertions, for example, that the social is constituted of ‘discourses of the subject’ and ‘decentred identities’ rather than ‘living and breathing, embodied and feeling human beings’ Different types of qualitative research have common characteristics and use similar procedures while differences in data collection and analysis do exist. The following elements are part of most qualitative approaches: 

The data have primacy; the theoretical framework is not predetermined but derives directly from the data.



Qualitative research is content-bound, and researchers must be context sensitive.



Researchers immerse themselves in the natural setting of the people whose thoughts and feelings they wish to explore.



Qualitative researchers focus on the Emic perspective, the views of the people involved in the research and their perceptions, meanings and interpretations.



Qualitative researchers use “thick description”: they describe, analyze and interpret the data.



The relationship between the researcher and the researched is close and based on a position of equality as human beings.



Data collection and data analysis generally proceed together, and in some forms of qualitative research they interact.

Qualitative research is helpful in conducting detailed examination of cases that arise in the natural flow of social life. It tries to present authentic interpretations that are sensitive to specific social-historical contexts. Qualitative research helps us: 

Develop hypotheses for further testing and for qualitative questionnaire development.



Understand the feelings, values and perceptions that underlie and influence behaviour.



Develop parameters (i.e. relevant questions, range of responses) for a qualitative study.



Explore individual variance (in-depth exploration) and lived experiences.



Understand the subjective elements of research.



See inter-linkages amongst constructs/phenomena.

Qualitative research should be systematically and rigorously conducted.

It should be accountable for its quality and its claims, or to use Clive Seale’s terminology it should be ‘fallibilistic’ (1999: 6). In other words, it should not attempt to position itself beyond judgement, and should provide its audience with material upon which they can judge it. Research should be strategically conducted, yet flexible and contextual. Essentially, this means that qualitative researchers should make decisions on the basis not only of a sound research strategy, but also of a sensitivity to the changing contexts and situations in which the research takes place. Qualitative research should involve critical self-scrutiny by the researcher, or active reflexivity. This means that researchers should constantly take stock of their actions and their role in the research process, and subject these to the same critical scrutiny as the rest of their ‘data’. This is based on the belief that a researcher cannot be neutral, or objective, or detached, from the knowledge and evidence they are generating. Instead, they should seek to understand their role in that process. Indeed, the very act of asking oneself difficult questions in the research process is part of the activity of reflexivity. Qualitative research should produce explanations or arguments, rather than claiming to offer mere descriptions. Descriptions and explorations involve selective viewing and interpretation; they cannot be neutral, objective or total. The elements which a researcher chooses to see as relevant for a description or exploration will be based, implicitly or explicitly, on a way of seeing the social world, and on a particular form of explanatory logic. What is being advocated is that qualitative researchers recognize that they are producing arguments, and are explicit about the logic on which these are based. Qualitative research should produce explanations or arguments which are generalizable in some way, or have some demonstrable wider resonance. It should not be seen as necessarily in opposition to, or antithetical to, quantitative research. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods is not entirely clear-cut, and all researchers should think very carefully about how and why they might combine any methods, whether qualitative, quantitative, or both. In all the heterogeneity of the approaches that may be characterized as ‘qualitative research’, there are certain basic assumptions and features pertaining to them: First, social reality may be understood as the result of meanings and contexts that are jointly created in social interaction. Both are interpreted by the participants in concrete situations within the framework of their subjective relevance horizons and therefore constitute the basis of shared meanings that they attribute to objects, events, situations and people. These meanings they constantly modify and ‘frame’ according to context in reaction to the meanings of others. In this sense social realities appear as a result of constantly developing

processes of social construction. For the methodology of qualitative research, the first implication of this is a concentration on the forms and contents of such everyday processes of construction more than on reconstructing the subjective views and meaning patterns of the social actors. Secondly, from the assumption about the constant everyday creation of a shared world there emerge the character of the process, and the reflexivity and recursivity of social reality. For qualitative research methodology a second implication of this is the analysis of communication and interaction sequences with the help of observation procedures and the subsequent sequential text analyses. Thirdly, human beings live in a variety of life situations that may be ‘objectively’ characterized by indicators such as income, education, profession, age, residence and so on. They show their physical circumstances meaningfully in a total, synthesized and contextualized manner and it is only this that endows such indicators with an interpretable meaning and thereby renders them effective. Statements obtained from subjects and statements classified according to methodological rules may, for example, be described using the concept ‘life-world’. Here subjective or collective meaning patterns (such as ‘lay theories’, ‘world-views’, shared norms and values), social relationships and associated incidental life circumstances may be related to individual biographical designs, past life history and perceived possibilities for future action. This process renders subjectively significant personal and local life-attitudes and lifestyles both recognizable and intelligible. From a methodological point of view this leads to a third implication: to a hermeneutic interpretation of subjectively intended meaning that becomes intelligible within the framework of a pre-existing, intuitive everyday prior understanding that exists in every society of meanings which may be objectivized and described in terms of ideal types. This in turn makes it possible to explain individual and collective attitudes and actions. Fourthly, background assumptions of a range of qualitative research approaches are that reality is created interactively and becomes meaningful subjectively and that it is transmitted and become effective by collective and individual instances of interpretation. Accordingly, in qualitative research communication takes on a predominant role. In methodological terms this means that strategies of data collection themselves have a communicative dialogic character. For this reason the formation of theories, concepts and types in qualitative research itself is explicitly seen as the result of a perspective influenced reconstruction of the social

construction of reality. In the methodology of qualitative research two fundamentally different reconstruction perspectives may be distinguished: • the attempt to describe fundamental general mechanisms that actors use in their daily life to ‘create’ social reality, as is assumed, for instance, in ethnomethodology; • ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973b,) of the various subjective constructions of reality (theories of everyday life, biographies, events and so on) and their anchoring in self-evident cultural phenomena and practices in places and organization-specific environments. Investigations of the first type provide information about the methods used by everyday actors to conduct conversations, overcome situations, structure biographies and so on. Investigations of the second type provide object-related knowledge about subjectively significant connections between experience and action, about views on such themes as health, education, politics, social relationships; responsibility, destiny, guilt; or about life-plans, inner experiences and feelings. BRIEF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: Qualitative and quantitative-standardized research have developed in parallel as two independent spheres of empirical social research. Where research questions correspond they may also be used in combination. But here it should not be forgotten that they also differ from each other on essential points. For example, differences between the two research approaches are seen in the forms of experience that are considered to be subject to methodical verification and, consequently, admissible as acceptable experience. This impinges in essential ways on the role of the investigator and on the degree of procedural standardization (see 4.1). 1 In quantitative research a central value is attached to the observer’s independence of the object of research. Qualitative research, on the other hand, relies on the investigator’s (methodically controlled) subjective perception as one component of the evidence. 2 Quantitative research relies, for its comparativestatistical evaluation, on a high degree of standardization in its data collection. This leads, for example, to a situation where in a questionnaire the ordering of questions and the possible responses are strictly prescribed in advance, and where – ideally – the conditions under which the questions are answered should be held constant for all participants in the research. Qualitative interviews are more flexible in this respect, and may be adapted more clearly to the course of events in individual cases. Apart from debates in which both research directions deny each other any scientific legitimacy, we may ask more soberly under what circumstances – that is, for what questions and what objects of research – qualitative or quantitative research respectively may be

indicated. Qualitative research may always be recommended in cases where there is an interest in resolving an aspect of reality (‘field exploration’) that has long been underresearched with the help of some ‘sensitizing concepts’ (Blumer 1969). By using such ‘naturalistic’ methods as participant observation, open interviews or diaries, the first batch of information may be obtained to permit the formulation of hypotheses for subsequent standardized and representative data collection (for example, on the role of family members in rehabilitation; on the lifeworld of mentally ill people). Here qualitative studies are, if not a precondition, then a sensible follow-up to quantitative studies. Qualitative research can complement so-called ‘hard data’ on patients (for example, sociodemographic data, the distribution of diagnoses over a population) with their more subjective views – such as perceptions of their professional future in the face of illness, or their degree of satisfaction with the results of particular types of treatment. Qualitative (case-)studies can complement representative quantitative studies through differentiation and intensification, and can offer explanations to help in the interpretation of statistical relationships....