Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods (1)
Qualitative research is the study of reasons, meaning and sense behind human actions. It
seeks to answer why people practice certain human actions. It analyses utterances and
performances of meaning, mainly through oral communications, texts, and images.
Quantitative research is the study of numbers. It asks ‘how many’ people practice ‘how many’
different behaviors. The main tool for this kind of research is the survey. The aim of
quantitative analysis is to find numerical patterns in responses to survey questions or in
observed behaviors. And to find indicators for the magnitude of people's decisions and
behaviors.
The research methods used in qualitative research are not conducted according to a fixed
standard recipe but are developing parallel to the insights you gain. For setting up our
research design we need to make several crucial decisions.
- What is my research problem, and what are my research questions? What do we
already know about the problem?
- What cases are important?
- How are they distinguished? For example, with respect to time and place.
- What are relevant data, and what aspects are more important than others in the
theoretical and analytical framework we are using?
- How to obtain these data?
- With what methods?
- How to analyze and explain the results?
Crucial issues in setting up your research are validity and reliability. You need to set up your
research in such a way that validity and reliability are as much as possible guaranteed.
- Internal & construct validity = Are inferences correct? Do data reflect reality? Do
your observations cover what you intended to observe?
- External validity = Generalizability: can we develop a general theory?
- Reliability = Are observations independent of (biases or mistakes by) researchers?
Are observations replicable?
Critique that criteria are based on natural science paradigm and do not consider situation of
qualitative research:
- Data cannot be separated from the researcher (internal validity)
- Case is inseparable from its context (external validity)
- Replicability not feasible with complex phenomena (reliability)
- Detachment of researcher impossible, nor desirable (reliability)
But not: anything goes! Other criteria to account for scientific rigor, trustworthiness e.g.
- Credibility (truth value)
- Transferability (applicability)
- Dependability (consistency)
- Confirmability (neutrality)
Qualitative Quantitative
- Holistic - Reductionist
- Theoretic sampling - Random sampling
- Iterative - Linear
- Studies motivations - Studies overt behaviors
- Provides depth of - Measures level of
understanding occurrence
- Subjective - Objective
- Enables discovery - Provides proof
- Explorative, open - Confirmatory, closed
- Allows insights into - Measures levels of action,
behavior, trends, etc… trends, etc…
- Interprets - Describes facts
- Why? - How many? How often?
, Theoretical background for Qualitative Research Methods (2)
Auguste Comte – positivism
For him nothing was self-evident, or God given. For him every fact needed to be positively
confirmed using rigorous scientific research methods, inspired by the natural sciences.
Today, in the debate between quantitative and qualitative methods, positivism is sometimes
seen as rather conservative or even reactionary, while the newer qualitative approaches are
seen as progressive. However, it is important to note, that this is partly a misunderstanding.
In his time, his ideas were very emancipatory, trying to overcome the conservative ideas of
the church or the dominant feudal powers, who claimed a monopoly of what was seen as
correct knowledge. Comte’s revolutionary idea, at that time was, that not God nor the Ruling
Powers but empirical facts and observations should determine what is true.
Key features of positivism:
o A focus on science as a set of statements
o logical structure and coherence of these statements
o Which can be verified, confirmed, or falsified by the empirical observation of reality
o All things are ultimately (objectively) measurable
o Science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the investigator
o Science contains theories which are more or less 1:1 (representative) models of reality
o Science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are different from old ones
o Science is cumulative
o Scientific knowledge is predominantly universal
o Science involves the idea of the unity of science, basically one science – one truth –
about one real world.
Edmund Husserl – Phenomenology
Was convinced that the human sciences are very different from the natural sciences, and that
their methods should take this into account. For him Human being is not a neutral and dead
thing, but a living, experiencing and thinking creature, who did not just follow natural laws,
but who could make up their own mind, and take their own decisions. For him there is no way,
we could observe the world around us objectively, like August Comte suggested. For him it
was clear, that we do not have direct access to the facts. In our observations we are always
influenced by our current attitude towards the world. How we observe the world, depends on
our subjective perspective. So for Husserl, we do not observe facts, but we observe how these
facts, appear to us, from our subjective perspective. These appearances are what he
designates as Phenomena. Only if we understand our own perspective, if we understand the
structure of our experiences, and the way we subjectively perceive our surroundings, we can
get closer to the essence of the things out there.
Key features Phenomenology:
o What we observe is not the object – or a ‘fact’ – as it is in itself, but how it is given in
our intentional acts.
o One has to distinguish between the act of consciousness perception and the
phenomenon at which it is directed (the object-in-itself, transcendent to consciousness)
o Knowledge of essences would only be possible by ‘bracketing’ all assumptions about
the existence of an external world and the inessential (subjective) aspects of how the
object is concretely given to us.
o The ways in which we direct ourselves toward and perceive those objects is normally
conceived of in what he called the ‘natural standpoint’
o The ‘natural standpoint’ is characterized by a belief that objects materially exist and
exhibit properties that we see as emanating from them
o Husserl proposed a radical new way of looking at objects by examining how we, in our
many ways of being intentionally directed toward them, actually ‘constitute’ them.
o In the phenomenological way of looking, the object ceases to be something simply
‘external’ and ceases to be seen as providing indicators about what it is.
Our observations are not just external, but partly also determined internally, and therefore
related to our current perspective, our current situation, and our current doings, as well as our
past experiences. The context of the observation makes a difference. Therefore, observations
are also not universal but always contingent. Of course, this is not just true for the people
,we investigate, but also for the researcher him or herself. So there is a double contingency
involved. So in contrast to the positivistic assumptions, we cannot objectively observe facts,
and explain causal relationships, but we can at best try to interpret what we think we see,
when we take all the involved subjectivities into account, and try to understand what is going
on. This is the foundation of an interpretive approach, of an interpretive qualitative
methodology.
Interpretative Approach
o Phenomena do not independently exist ‘out there’, but are based on interpretations
o Intentions of investigator, as well as intentions of investigated subjects, are
important if we want to interpret the world, or if we want to understand the way,
people perceive and act in this world
o Through our intentions phenomena are attributed a meaning
o Without considering the specific subjective perspective of the subjects we
investigate, we cannot really understand how and why people act in the way they do
o Research focus shifts from ‘superficial’ analysis and ‘explanation’ of regularities to the
understanding of the way people make sense of the world and act accordingly
o With ‘Sense’ (‘Sinn’) we mean the reasons people have for their (spatial) actions.
These reasons can point to:
o Specific conditions of the situation in which one acts
o Rules, norms, expectations
o Preferences, ambitions, moods, habits
o Visions, goals, imaginations, projections of a future situation
o Abilities, competences, means, power, resources, authorities
o Perceptions, meanings, semantics, interpretations
o Etc.
o Understanding (spatial) action is therefore dependent of the context
o As each context is different, generalization is difficult and often not useful
o We have understood (‘Verstehen’) a (spatial) act or decision if we feel that these
reasons are plausible and logical (rational), if they make ‘sense’, when we – put us in
the situation and position of the investigated (empathy, go native)
o We thus reconstruct the motives, logics and rules of (spatial) actions
o Especially if we want to understand human (spatial) actions, and in contrast to natural
sciences, we need an interpretative (hermeneutic) approach.
Historical development of qualitative methods
o 1900-1940 traditional -> Focused on unknown (sub)cultures, and their objective
description
o 1940-1980 modern -> Formalization of (observation and interpretation) methods
o 1980-1990 crisis of representation -> Critical reflection on position of researcher,
research process and presentation of results
o 1990-… from ‘theory to narrative’ -> Shift from ‘correct’ application of methods,
towards the ‘art and politics’ of interpretation and presentation (Science as a story
about reality)
Philosophical assumptions
Usually, your implicit or explicit philosophical assumptions can best be described as beliefs
about
o Ontology -> is related to your assumptions about the nature of reality. Most
researchers conducting qualitative research assume that reality can be observed and
experienced from different perspectives, resulting in different accounts of reality, or
you might even say 'different realities'. So most qualitative research is set up to
uncover these different perspectives and realities.
o Epistemology-> is related to your assumptions about what you believe to know or
could know about reality and what you believe is needed to be sure about what you
know. Most researchers conducting qualitative research, for example, believe that one
should be very open to new and unexpected aspects and also 'factor in our
participants' context and situation when trying to gain knowledge of the phenomenon
, we are investigating. Therefore, it is also often assumed that we need to immerse
ourselves into the field of our inquiry and get in close contact with our participants.
o Axiology -> is related to your values in your research. In some approaches to
research, it is assumed that the researcher should try to keep distance to the object of
research. However, in qualitative research, it is usually assumed that we cannot avoid
being highly engaged and involved in our research. Your own values will therefore
certainly play a role in your observations and interpretations. Therefore, when you
report about your research, you should be open and explicit about your ‘position’ in
relation to the topic of your research.
o Methodology -> is related to what we believe to be a sound method for collecting and
analyzing data. For instance, most researchers conducting qualitative research share
that we cannot know exactly in advance what scientific propositions (hypotheses) we
need to test empirically, and thus our findings are less driven by our prior knowledge
and more by what we unexpectedly chance upon in the way of findings. This is what we
usually describe as an inductive methodology. And since we do not know in advance
exactly what we will discover, the methodology of researchers conducting qualitative
research often emerges and further develops throughout the process of conducting the
research.
Interpretative frameworks
How would a postpositivist see London?
A post positivist, like a positivist will see a city when they look at something like London. They
might say something like: I can measure its size but I'm aware that it's only an approximation.
Greater London is growing all the time. How we define and measure London is imperfect and
so the picture is never quite complete. Even if we acknowledge that London is something
objective and real, which we do. We can create some generalizations we can create some
descriptions and we can use rigorous qualitative methods to define some elements of the city
that wouldn't necessarily be captured by a positivist. Sometimes it can be easier to say what
London is not.
How would a constructivist see London?
A constructivist would still see a physical city but that also see dimensions that are mediated
by human activity. Cities organize the world. They're complex in multiple communities that
give life meaning and purpose. They might see London as a point in global exchange in
culture. London has a lot of different functions for many different people and it's a diversity
with a rich history and it's understood differently in different contexts. So the way people see
London varies by their local community and within London itself there are many local
communities.
How would a post-structuralist see London?
If a post-structuralist looked at the city of London they might ask a question like: what is a
city. They might trace the genealogy of the idea of a city. They would argue that the City of
London isn't a stable construct but an idea that has evolved over time and that it means
different things to different people. The Romans knew this area as Londinium. Australians
have for a hundred years or even more understood it in different ways and different people
within Australia understand it in different ways. within London itself it's never fully understood
as one absolute thing but a mix and a mess of ideas and that's what language does.
