{"id":80,"date":"2019-09-17T12:19:30","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T16:19:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/chapter\/qualitative-research\/"},"modified":"2019-09-17T12:25:43","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T16:25:43","slug":"qualitative-research","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rmethodspsych\/chapter\/qualitative-research\/","title":{"raw":"Qualitative Research","rendered":"Qualitative Research"},"content":{"raw":"\n
\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
    \n\t
  1. List several ways in which qualitative research differs from quantitative research in psychology.<\/span><\/li>\n\t
  2. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research in psychology compared with quantitative research.<\/span><\/li>\n\t
  3. Give examples of qualitative research in psychology.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n

    What Is Qualitative Research?<\/span><\/h2>\n

    This textbook is primarily about <\/span>quantitative research<\/span><\/strong>. Quantitative researchers typically start with a focused research question or hypothesis, collect a small amount of data from each of a large number of individuals, describe the resulting data using statistical techniques, and draw general conclusions about some large population. Although this method is by far the most common approach to conducting empirical research in psychology, there is an important alternative called qualitative research. Qualitative research originated in the disciplines of anthropology and sociology but is now used to study many psychological topics as well. Qualitative researchers generally begin with a less focused research question, collect large amounts of relatively \u201cunfiltered\u201d data from a relatively small number of individuals, and describe their data using nonstatistical techniques. They are usually less concerned with drawing general conclusions about human behaviour than with understanding in detail the <\/span>experience<\/span><\/em> of their research participants.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Consider, for example, a study by researcher Per Lindqvist and his colleagues, who wanted to learn how the families of teenage suicide victims cope with their loss (Lindqvist, Johansson, & Karlsson, 2008)<\/span><\/span>[footnote]Lindqvist, P., Johansson, L., & Karlsson, U. (2008). In the aftermath of teenage suicide: A qualitative study of the psychosocial consequences for the surviving family members. BMC Psychiatry, 8<\/em>, 26. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.biomedcentral.com\/1471-244X\/8\/26[\/footnote].<\/span> They did not have a specific research question or hypothesis, such as, What percentage of family members join suicide support groups? Instead, they wanted to understand the variety of reactions that families had, with a focus on what it is like from <\/span>their<\/span><\/em> perspectives. To address this question, they interviewed the families of 10 teenage suicide victims in their homes in rural Sweden. The interviews were relatively unstructured, beginning with a general request for the families to talk about the victim and ending with an invitation to talk about anything else that they wanted to tell the interviewer. One of the most important themes that emerged from these interviews was that even as life returned to \u201cnormal,\u201d the families continued to struggle with the question of why their loved one committed suicide. This struggle appeared to be especially difficult for families in which the suicide was most unexpected.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

    The Purpose of Qualitative Research<\/span><\/h2>\n

    Again, this textbook is primarily about quantitative research in psychology. The strength of quantitative research is its ability to provide precise answers to specific research questions and to draw general conclusions about human behaviour. This method is how we know that people have a strong tendency to obey authority figures, for example, or that female undergraduate students are not substantially more talkative than male undergraduate students. But while quantitative research is good at providing precise answers to specific research questions, it is not nearly as good at <\/span>generating<\/span><\/em> novel and interesting research questions. Likewise, while quantitative research is good at drawing general conclusions about human behaviour, it is not nearly as good at providing detailed descriptions of the behaviour of particular groups in particular situations. And it is not very good at all at communicating what it is actually like to be a member of a particular group in a particular situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    But the relative weaknesses of quantitative research are the relative strengths of qualitative research. Qualitative research can help researchers to generate new and interesting research questions and hypotheses. The research of Lindqvist and colleagues, for example, suggests that there may be a general relationship between how unexpected a suicide is and how consumed the family is with trying to understand why the teen committed suicide. This relationship can now be explored using quantitative research. But it is unclear whether this question would have arisen at all without the researchers sitting down with the families and listening to what they themselves wanted to say about their experience. Qualitative research can also provide rich and detailed descriptions of human behaviour in the real-world contexts in which it occurs. Among qualitative researchers, this depth is often referred to as \u201cthick description\u201d (Geertz, 1973)<\/span>[footnote]Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures<\/em>. New York, NY: Basic Books.[\/footnote]. <\/span><\/span>Similarly, qualitative research can convey a sense of what it is actually like to be a member of a particular group or in a particular situation\u2014what qualitative researchers often refer to as the \u201clived experience\u201d of the research participants. Lindqvist and colleagues, for example, describe how all the families spontaneously offered to show the interviewer the victim\u2019s bedroom or the place where the suicide occurred\u2014revealing the importance of these physical locations to the families. It seems unlikely that a quantitative study would have discovered this detail.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

    Data Collection and Analysis in Qualitative Research<\/span><\/h2>\n

    As with correlational research, data collection approaches in qualitative research are quite varied and can involve naturalistic observation, archival data, artwork, and many other things. But one of the most common approaches, especially for psychological research, is to conduct <\/span>interviews<\/span><\/strong>. Interviews in qualitative research can be unstructured\u2014consisting of a small number of general questions or prompts that allow participants to talk about what is of interest to them--or structured, where there is a strict script that the interviewer does not deviate from. Most interviews are in between the two and are called semi-structured interviews, where the researcher has a few consistent questions and can follow up by asking more detailed questions about the topics that do come up. Such interviews can be lengthy and detailed, but they are usually conducted with a relatively small sample. The unstructured interview was the approach used by Lindqvist and colleagues in their research on the families of suicide survivors because the researchers were aware that how much was disclosed about such a sensitive topic should be led by the families not by the researchers. Small groups of people who participate together in interviews focused on a particular topic or issue are often referred to as <\/span>focus groups<\/span><\/strong>. The interaction among participants in a focus group can sometimes bring out more information than can be learned in a one-on-one interview. The use of focus groups has become a standard technique in business and industry among those who want to understand consumer tastes and preferences. The content of all focus group interviews is usually recorded and transcribed to facilitate later analyses. However, we know from social psychology that group dynamics are often at play in any group, including focus groups, and it is useful to be aware of those possibilities.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Another approach to data collection in qualitative research is participant observation. In <\/span>participant observation<\/span><\/strong>, researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are studying. The data they collect can include interviews (usually unstructured), their own notes based on their observations and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts. The basic rationale for participant observation is that there may be important information that is only accessible to, or can be interpreted only by, someone who is an active participant in the group or situation. An example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins (published in <\/span>Social Psychology Quarterly<\/span><\/em>) on a university-based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008)<\/span><\/span>[footnote]Wilkins, A. (2008). \u201cHappier than Non-Christians\u201d: Collective emotions and symbolic boundaries among evangelical Christians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71<\/em>, 281\u2013301.[\/footnote].<\/span> Wilkins spent 12 months attending and participating in the group\u2019s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group \u201cenforced\u201d happiness\u2014for example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

    Data Analysis in Quantitative Research<\/span><\/h2>\n

    Although quantitative and qualitative research generally differ along several important dimensions (e.g., the specificity of the research question, the type of data collected), it is the method of data <\/span>analysis<\/span> that distinguishes them more clearly than anything else. To illustrate this idea, imagine a team of researchers that conducts a series of unstructured interviews with recovering alcoholics to learn about the role of their religious faith in their recovery. Although this project sounds like qualitative research, imagine further that once they collect the data, they code the data in terms of how often each participant mentions God (or a \u201chigher power\u201d), and they then use descriptive and inferential statistics to find out whether those who mention God more often are more successful in abstaining from alcohol. Now it sounds like quantitative research. In other words, the quantitative-qualitative distinction depends more on what researchers <\/span>do<\/span> with the data they have collected than with why or how they collected the data.<\/span><\/p>\n

    But what does qualitative data analysis look like? Just as there are many ways to collect data in qualitative research, there are many ways to analyze data. Here we focus on one general approach called <\/span>grounded theory<\/span><\/strong> (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)<\/span><\/span>[footnote]Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research<\/em>. Chicago, IL: Aldine.[\/footnote].<\/span> This approach was developed within the field of sociology in the 1960s and has gradually gained popularity in psychology. Remember that in quantitative research, it is typical for the researcher to start with a theory, derive a hypothesis from that theory, and then collect data to test that specific hypothesis. In qualitative research using grounded theory, researchers start with the data and develop a theory or an interpretation that is \u201cgrounded in\u201d those data. They do this analysis in stages. First, they identify ideas that are repeated throughout the data. Then they organize these ideas into a smaller number of broader themes. Finally, they write a <\/span>theoretical narrative<\/span><\/strong>\u2014an interpretation\u2014of the data in terms of the themes that they have identified. This theoretical narrative focuses on the subjective experience of the participants and is usually supported by many direct quotations from the participants themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

    As an example, consider a study by researchers Laura Abrams and Laura Curran, who used the grounded theory approach to study the experience of postpartum depression symptoms among low-income mothers (Abrams & Curran, 2009)<\/span>[footnote]Abrams, L. S., & Curran, L. (2009). \u201cAnd you\u2019re telling me not to stress?\u201d A grounded theory study of postpartum depression symptoms among low-income mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33<\/em>, 351\u2013362.[\/footnote]. <\/span><\/span>Their data were the result of unstructured interviews with 19 participants. <\/span>Table 7.1<\/span> shows the five broad themes the researchers identified and the more specific repeating ideas that made up each of those themes. In their research report, they provide numerous quotations from their participants, such as this one from \u201cDestiny:\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    Well, just recently my apartment was broken into and the fact that his Medicaid for some reason was cancelled so a lot of things was happening within the last two weeks all at one time. So that in itself I don\u2019t want to say almost drove me mad but it put me in a funk.\u2026Like I really was depressed. (p. 357)<\/span><\/p>\n

    Their theoretical narrative focused on the participants\u2019 experience of their symptoms not as an abstract \u201caffective disorder\u201d but as closely tied to the daily struggle of raising children alone under often difficult circumstances.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Table 7.1 Themes and Repeating Ideas in a Study of Postpartum Depression Among Low-Income Mothers<\/em><\/caption>\n
    <\/b>Theme<\/b><\/td>\n<\/b>Repeating ideas<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Ambivalence<\/td>\n\u201cI wasn\u2019t prepared for this baby,\u201d \u201cI didn\u2019t want to have any more children.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Caregiving overload<\/td>\n\u201cPlease stop crying,\u201d \u201cI need a break,\u201d \u201cI can\u2019t do this anymore.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Juggling<\/td>\n\u201cNo time to breathe,\u201d \u201cEveryone depends on me,\u201d \u201cNavigating the maze.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Mothering alone<\/td>\n\u201cI really don\u2019t have any help,\u201d \u201cMy baby has no father.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Real-life worry<\/td>\n\u201cI don\u2019t have any money,\u201d \u201cWill my baby be OK?\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s not safe here.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The Quantitative-Qualitative \u201cDebate\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\n

    Given their differences, it may come as no surprise that quantitative and qualitative research in psychology and related fields do not coexist in complete harmony. Some quantitative researchers criticize qualitative methods on the grounds that they lack objectivity, are difficult to evaluate in terms of reliability and validity, and do not allow generalization to people or situations other than those actually studied. At the same time, some qualitative researchers criticize quantitative methods on the grounds that they overlook the richness of human behaviour and experience and instead answer simple questions about easily quantifiable variables.<\/span><\/p>\n

    In general, however, qualitative researchers are well aware of the issues of objectivity, reliability, validity, and generalizability. In fact, they have developed a number of frameworks for addressing these issues (which are beyond the scope of our discussion). And in general, quantitative researchers are well aware of the issue of oversimplification. They do not believe that all human behaviour and experience can be adequately described in terms of a small number of variables and the statistical relationships among them. Instead, they use simplification as a strategy for uncovering general principles of human behaviour.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Many researchers from both the quantitative and qualitative camps now agree that the two approaches can and should be combined into what has come to be called <\/span>mixed-methods research<\/span><\/strong> (Todd, Nerlich, McKeown, & Clarke, 2004)<\/span>[footnote]Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S., & Clarke, D. D. (2004) Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice<\/em>. London, UK: Psychology Press.[\/footnote].<\/span> (In fact, the studies by Lindqvist and colleagues and by Abrams and Curran both combined quantitative and qualitative approaches.) One approach to combining quantitative and qualitative research is to use qualitative research for hypothesis generation and quantitative research for hypothesis testing. Again, while a qualitative study might suggest that families who experience an unexpected suicide have more difficulty resolving the question of why, a well-designed quantitative study could test a hypothesis by measuring these specific variables for a large sample. A second approach to combining quantitative and qualitative research is referred to as <\/span>triangulation<\/span><\/strong>. The idea is to use both quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously to study the same general questions and to compare the results. If the results of the quantitative and qualitative methods converge on the same general conclusion, they reinforce and enrich each other. If the results diverge, then they suggest an interesting new question: Why do the results diverge and how can they be reconciled?<\/span><\/p>\n

    Using qualitative research can often help clarify quantitative results in triangulation. Trenor, Yu, Waight, Zerda, and Sha (2008)<\/span>[footnote]Trenor, J.M., Yu, S.L., Waight, C.L., Zerda. K.S & Sha T.-L. (2008). The relations of ethnicity to female engineering students\u2019 educational experiences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning environment. Journal of Engineering Education, 97<\/em>(4), 449-465.[\/footnote]<\/span> investigated the experience of female engineering students at university. In the first phase, female engineering students were asked to complete a survey, where they rated a number of their perceptions, including their sense of belonging.  Their results were compared by the student ethnicities, and statistically, the various ethnic groups showed no differences in their ratings of sense of belonging.  One might look at that result and conclude that ethnicity does not have anything to do with sense of belonging.  However, in the second phase, the authors also conducted interviews with the students, and in those interviews, many minority students reported how the diversity of cultures at the university enhanced their sense of belonging. Without the qualitative component, we might have drawn the wrong conclusion about the quantitative results.<\/span><\/p>\n

    This example shows how qualitative and quantitative research work together to help us understand human behaviour. Some researchers have characterized quantitative research as best for identifying behaviours or the phenomenon whereas qualitative research is best for understanding meaning or identifying the mechanism. However, Bryman (2012)<\/span>[footnote]Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods<\/em>, 4th ed. Oxford: OUP.[\/footnote] argues for breaking down the divide between these arbitrarily different ways of investigating the same questions.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

    \n

    Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n