what is the importance of qualitative research in social work

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 Social Work Research Methods

Introduction.

History of Social Work Research Methods
Feasibility Issues Influencing the Research Process
Measurement Methods
Existing Scales
Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Evaluating Outcome
Single-System Designs for Evaluating Outcome
Program Evaluation
Surveys and Sampling
Introductory Statistics Texts
Advanced Aspects of Inferential Statistics
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative Data Analysis
Historical Research Methods
Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews
Research Ethics
Culturally Competent Research Methods
Teaching Social Work Research Methods

Other Subject Areas

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

Child Welfare Effectiveness
Immigration and Child Welfare
International Human Trafficking
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Social Work Research Methods by Allen Rubin LAST REVIEWED: 28 April 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 14 December 2009 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195389678-0008

Social work research means conducting an investigation in accordance with the scientific method. The aim of social work research is to build the social work knowledge base in order to solve practical problems in social work practice or social policy. Investigating phenomena in accordance with the scientific method requires maximal adherence to empirical principles, such as basing conclusions on observations that have been gathered in a systematic, comprehensive, and objective fashion. The resources in this entry discuss how to do that as well as how to utilize and teach research methods in social work. Other professions and disciplines commonly produce applied research that can guide social policy or social work practice. Yet no commonly accepted distinction exists at this time between social work research methods and research methods in allied fields relevant to social work. Consequently useful references pertaining to research methods in allied fields that can be applied to social work research are included in this entry.

This section includes basic textbooks that are used in courses on social work research methods. Considerable variation exists between textbooks on the broad topic of social work research methods. Some are comprehensive and delve into topics deeply and at a more advanced level than others. That variation is due in part to the different needs of instructors at the undergraduate and graduate levels of social work education. Most instructors at the undergraduate level prefer shorter and relatively simplified texts; however, some instructors teaching introductory master’s courses on research prefer such texts too. The texts in this section that might best fit their preferences are by Yegidis and Weinbach 2009 and Rubin and Babbie 2007 . The remaining books might fit the needs of instructors at both levels who prefer a more comprehensive and deeper coverage of research methods. Among them Rubin and Babbie 2008 is perhaps the most extensive and is often used at the doctoral level as well as the master’s and undergraduate levels. Also extensive are Drake and Jonson-Reid 2007 , Grinnell and Unrau 2007 , Kreuger and Neuman 2006 , and Thyer 2001 . What distinguishes Drake and Jonson-Reid 2007 is its heavy inclusion of statistical and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) content integrated with each chapter. Grinnell and Unrau 2007 and Thyer 2001 are unique in that they are edited volumes with different authors for each chapter. Kreuger and Neuman 2006 takes Neuman’s social sciences research text and adapts it to social work. The Practitioner’s Guide to Using Research for Evidence-based Practice ( Rubin 2007 ) emphasizes the critical appraisal of research, covering basic research methods content in a relatively simplified format for instructors who want to teach research methods as part of the evidence-based practice process instead of with the aim of teaching students how to produce research.

Drake, Brett, and Melissa Jonson-Reid. 2007. Social work research methods: From conceptualization to dissemination . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

This introductory text is distinguished by its use of many evidence-based practice examples and its heavy coverage of statistical and computer analysis of data.

Grinnell, Richard M., and Yvonne A. Unrau, eds. 2007. Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches . 8th ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Contains chapters written by different authors, each focusing on a comprehensive range of social work research topics.

Kreuger, Larry W., and W. Lawrence Neuman. 2006. Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative applications . Boston: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon.

An adaptation to social work of Neuman's social sciences research methods text. Its framework emphasizes comparing quantitative and qualitative approaches. Despite its title, quantitative methods receive more attention than qualitative methods, although it does contain considerable qualitative content.

Rubin, Allen. 2007. Practitioner’s guide to using research for evidence-based practice . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

This text focuses on understanding quantitative and qualitative research methods and designs for the purpose of appraising research as part of the evidence-based practice process. It also includes chapters on instruments for assessment and monitoring practice outcomes. It can be used at the graduate or undergraduate level.

Rubin, Allen, and Earl R. Babbie. 2007. Essential research methods for social work . Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks Cole.

This is a shorter and less advanced version of Rubin and Babbie 2008 . It can be used for research methods courses at the undergraduate or master's levels of social work education.

Rubin, Allen, and Earl R. Babbie. Research Methods for Social Work . 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks Cole, 2008.

This comprehensive text focuses on producing quantitative and qualitative research as well as utilizing such research as part of the evidence-based practice process. It is widely used for teaching research methods courses at the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels of social work education.

Thyer, Bruce A., ed. 2001 The handbook of social work research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This comprehensive compendium includes twenty-nine chapters written by esteemed leaders in social work research. It covers quantitative and qualitative methods as well as general issues.

Yegidis, Bonnie L., and Robert W. Weinbach. 2009. Research methods for social workers . 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

This introductory paperback text covers a broad range of social work research methods and does so in a briefer fashion than most lengthier, hardcover introductory research methods texts.

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 Social Work »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Adolescent Depression
Adolescent Pregnancy
Adolescents
Adoption Home Study Assessments
Adult Protective Services in the United States
African Americans
Aging out of foster care
Aging, Physical Health and
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems
Alcohol and Drug Problems, Prevention of Adolescent and Yo...
Alcohol Problems: Practice Interventions
Alcohol Use Disorder
Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias
Anti-Oppressive Practice
Asian Americans
Asian-American Youth
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Baccalaureate Social Workers
Behavioral Health
Behavioral Social Work Practice
Bereavement Practice
Bisexuality
Brief Therapies in Social Work: Task-Centered Model and So...
Bullying and Social Work Intervention
Canadian Social Welfare, History of
Case Management in Mental Health in the United States
Central American Migration to the United States
Child Maltreatment Prevention
Child Neglect and Emotional Maltreatment
Child Poverty
Child Sexual Abuse
Child Welfare
Child Welfare and Child Protection in Europe, History of
Child Welfare Practice with LGBTQ Youth and Families
Children of Incarcerated Parents
Christianity and Social Work
Chronic Illness
Clinical Social Work Practice with Adult Lesbians
Clinical Social Work Practice with Males
Cognitive Behavior Therapies with Diverse and Stressed Pop...
Cognitive Processing Therapy
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
Community Development
Community Policing
Community-Needs Assessment
Comparative Social Work
Computational Social Welfare: Applying Data Science in Soc...
Conflict Resolution
Council on Social Work Education
Counseling Female Offenders
Criminal Justice
Crisis Interventions
Cultural Competence and Ethnic Sensitive Practice
Culture, Ethnicity, Substance Use, and Substance Use Disor...
Dementia Care
Dementia Care, Ethical Aspects of
Depression and Cancer
Development and Infancy (Birth to Age Three)
Differential Response in Child Welfare
Digital Storytelling for Social Work Interventions
Direct Practice in Social Work
Disabilities
Disability and Disability Culture
Domestic Violence Among Immigrants
Early Pregnancy and Parenthood Among Child Welfare–Involve...
Eating Disorders
Ecological Framework
Elder Mistreatment
End-of-Life Decisions
Epigenetics for Social Workers
Ethical Issues in Social Work and Technology
Ethics and Values in Social Work
European Institutions and Social Work
European Union, Justice and Home Affairs in the
Evidence-based Social Work Practice: Issues, Controversies...
Families with Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual Parents
Family Caregiving
Family Group Conferencing
Family Policy
Family Services
Family Therapy
Family Violence
Fathering Among Families Served By Child Welfare
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
Field Education
Financial Literacy and Social Work
Financing Health-Care Delivery in the United States
Forensic Social Work
Foster Care
Foster care and siblings
Gender, Violence, and Trauma in Immigration Detention in t...
Generalist Practice and Advanced Generalist Practice
Grounded Theory
Group Work across Populations, Challenges, and Settings
Group Work, Research, Best Practices, and Evidence-based
Harm Reduction
Health Care Reform
Health Disparities
Health Social Work
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1900–1950
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, 1950-1980
History of Social Work and Social Welfare, pre-1900
History of Social Work from 1980-2014
History of Social Work in China
History of Social Work in Northern Ireland
History of Social Work in the Republic of Ireland
History of Social Work in the United Kingdom
HIV/AIDS and Children
HIV/AIDS Prevention with Adolescents
Homelessness
Homelessness: Ending Homelessness as a Grand Challenge
Homelessness Outside the United States
Human Needs
Human Trafficking, Victims of
Immigrant Integration in the United States
Immigrant Policy in the United States
Immigrants and Refugees
Immigrants and Refugees: Evidence-based Social Work Practi...
Immigration and Health Disparities
Immigration and Intimate Partner Violence
Immigration and Poverty
Immigration and Spirituality
Immigration and Substance Use
Immigration and Trauma
Impaired Professionals
Indigenous Peoples
Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Supported Employmen...
In-home Child Welfare Services
Intergenerational Transmission of Maltreatment
International Social Welfare
International Social Work
International Social Work and Education
International Social Work and Social Welfare in Southern A...
Internet and Video Game Addiction
Interpersonal Psychotherapy
Intervention with Traumatized Populations
Intimate-Partner Violence
Juvenile Justice
Kinship Care
Korean Americans
Latinos and Latinas
Law, Social Work and the
LGBTQ Populations and Social Work
Mainland European Social Work, History of
Major Depressive Disorder
Management and Administration in Social Work
Maternal Mental Health
Medical Illness
Men: Health and Mental Health Care
Mental Health
Mental Health Diagnosis and the Addictive Substance Disord...
Mental Health Needs of Older People, Assessing the
Mental Illness: Children
Mental Illness: Elders
Microskills
Middle East and North Africa, International Social Work an...
Military Social Work
Mixed Methods Research
Moral distress and injury in social work
Motivational Interviewing
Multiculturalism
Native Americans
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
Neighborhood Social Cohesion
Neuroscience and Social Work
Nicotine Dependence
Organizational Development and Change
Pain Management
Palliative Care
Palliative Care: Evolution and Scope of Practice
Pandemics and Social Work
Parent Training
Personalization
Person-in-Environment
Philosophy of Science and Social Work
Physical Disabilities
Podcasts and Social Work
Police Social Work
Political Social Work in the United States
Positive Youth Development
Postsecondary Education Experiences and Attainment Among Y...
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Practice Interventions and Aging
Practice Interventions with Adolescents
Practice Research
Primary Prevention in the 21st Century
Productive Engagement of Older Adults
Profession, Social Work
Program Development and Grant Writing
Promoting Smart Decarceration as a Grand Challenge
Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Psychoanalysis and Psychodynamic Theory
Psychoeducation
Psychometrics
Psychopathology and Social Work Practice
Psychopharmacology and Social Work Practice
Psychosocial Framework
Psychosocial Intervention with Women
Psychotherapy and Social Work
Race and Racism
Readmission Policies in Europe
Redefining Police Interactions with People Experiencing Me...
Rehabilitation
Religiously Affiliated Agencies
Reproductive Health
Restorative Justice
Risk Assessment in Child Protection Services
Risk Management in Social Work
Rural Social Work in China
Rural Social Work Practice
School Social Work
School Violence
School-Based Delinquency Prevention
Services and Programs for Pregnant and Parenting Youth
Severe and Persistent Mental Illness: Adults
Sexual and Gender Minority Immigrants, Refugees, and Asylu...
Sexual Assault
Single-System Research Designs
Social and Economic Impact of US Immigration Policies on U...
Social Development
Social Insurance and Social Justice
Social Justice and Social Work
Social Movements
Social Planning
Social Policy
Social Policy in Denmark
Social Security in the United States (OASDHI)
Social Work and Islam
Social Work and Social Welfare in East, West, and Central ...
Social Work and Social Welfare in Europe
Social Work Education and Research
Social Work Leadership
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries Contributing to the Cla...
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries contributing to the fou...
Social Work Luminaries: Luminaries Who Contributed to Soci...
Social Work Regulation
Social Work Research Methods
Social Work with Interpreters
Solution-Focused Therapy
Strategic Planning
Strengths Perspective
Strengths-Based Models in Social Work
Supplemental Security Income
Survey Research
Sustainability: Creating Social Responses to a Changing En...
Syrian Refugees in Turkey
Task-Centered Practice
Technology Adoption in Social Work Education
Technology, Human Relationships, and Human Interaction
Technology in Social Work
Terminal Illness
The Impact of Systemic Racism on Latinxs’ Experiences with...
Transdisciplinary Science
Translational Science and Social Work
Transnational Perspectives in Social Work
Transtheoretical Model of Change
Trauma-Informed Care
Triangulation
Tribal child welfare practice in the United States
United States, History of Social Welfare in the
Universal Basic Income
Veteran Services
Vicarious Trauma and Resilience in Social Work Practice wi...
Vicarious Trauma Redefining PTSD
Victim Services
Virtual Reality and Social Work
Welfare State Reform in France
Welfare State Theory
Women and Macro Social Work Practice
Women's Health Care
Work and Family in the German Welfare State
Workforce Development of Social Workers Pre- and Post-Empl...
Working with Non-Voluntary and Mandated Clients
Young and Adolescent Lesbians
Youth at Risk
Youth Services
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
81.177.182.159

Technical Support
Find My Rep

Qualitative Research in Social Work

Ian Shaw - University of York, UK
Nick Gould - University of Bath, UK
Description

'The back cover of the book proclaims that "Qualitative Research in Social Work will be essential reading for all students, practitioners and researchers undertaking social work research." That just about sums it up for me' - British Journal of Social Work

`This book is a significant milestone in the development of social work research. It is characterized by an unparalleled command of the field of qualitative research in social work, and by a commitment to an understanding of the demands and potential of day-to-day social work practice' - Mike Fisher, Director of Research, National Institute for Social Research

` Qualitative Research in Social Work edited by Ian Shaw and Nick Gould, provides a state-of-the-art exposition and analysis of qualitative inquiry in relation to social work.... The book has an unusual degree of coherence for one with several authors. The five chapters by the editors (parts one and three) do an exceptional job of providing the necessary background information and setting the context for the six application chapters and of highlighting and discussing the issues raised in those chapters. The editors are respected scholars

well-versed in the theory and practice of qualitative research. Similarly, the contributing authors represent both considerable experience in this field and a diversity of interests. This combination makes Qualitative Research in Social Work an excellent text for students, practitioners, and researchers alike. It is a benchmark for social work progress in this area and points the way for the continued development of qualitative inquiry' - Professor Stanley L Witkin, Department of Social Work, University of Vermont

There is a clear need for a book which treats qualitative research as a substantive theme within social work, setting epistemological and methodological issues in a context whereby the agenda is set by, and is relevant to, social work. Qualitative Research in Social Work is just such a book and will be immensely useful for students, practitioners and researchers interested in and undertaking social work research.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

`A really fine book... an impressive work that adds much to the development of the use of qualitative methodology in social work research' - William J Reid, University at Albany

`Qualitative Research in Social Work edited by Ian Shaw and Nick Gould, provides a state-of-the-art exposition and analysis of qualitative inquiry in relation to social work.... The book has an unusual degree of coherence for one with several authors. The five chapters by the editors (parts one and three) do an exceptional job of providing the necessary background information and setting the context for the six application chapters and of highlighting and discussing the issues raised in those chapters. The editors are respected scholars

For anyone wanting to locate the importance of this research method within the wider context of the paradigm wars, this text is essential for social work academics and practitioners in research.

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option, related products.

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

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 Methods That Drive the Practice

A social worker surveys a community member.

Social workers advocate for the well-being of individuals, families and communities. But how do social workers know what interventions are needed to help an individual? How do they assess whether a treatment plan is working? What do social workers use to write evidence-based policy?

Social work involves research-informed practice and practice-informed research. At every level, social workers need to know objective facts about the populations they serve, the efficacy of their interventions and the likelihood that their policies will improve lives. A variety of social work research methods make that possible.

Data-Driven Work

Data is a collection of facts used for reference and analysis. In a field as broad as social work, data comes in many forms.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

As with any research, social work research involves both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Quantitative Research

Answers to questions like these can help social workers know about the populations they serve — or hope to serve in the future.

How many students currently receive reduced-price school lunches in the local school district?
How many hours per week does a specific individual consume digital media?
How frequently did community members access a specific medical service last year?

Quantitative data — facts that can be measured and expressed numerically — are crucial for social work.

Quantitative research has advantages for social scientists. Such research can be more generalizable to large populations, as it uses specific sampling methods and lends itself to large datasets. It can provide important descriptive statistics about a specific population. Furthermore, by operationalizing variables, it can help social workers easily compare similar datasets with one another.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative data — facts that cannot be measured or expressed in terms of mere numbers or counts — offer rich insights into individuals, groups and societies. It can be collected via interviews and observations.

What attitudes do students have toward the reduced-price school lunch program?
What strategies do individuals use to moderate their weekly digital media consumption?
What factors made community members more or less likely to access a specific medical service last year?

Qualitative research can thereby provide a textured view of social contexts and systems that may not have been possible with quantitative methods. Plus, it may even suggest new lines of inquiry for social work research.

Mixed Methods Research

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods into a single study is known as mixed methods research. This form of research has gained popularity in the study of social sciences, according to a 2019 report in the academic journal Theory and Society. Since quantitative and qualitative methods answer different questions, merging them into a single study can balance the limitations of each and potentially produce more in-depth findings.

However, mixed methods research is not without its drawbacks. Combining research methods increases the complexity of a study and generally requires a higher level of expertise to collect, analyze and interpret the data. It also requires a greater level of effort, time and often money.

The Importance of Research Design

Data-driven practice plays an essential role in social work. Unlike philanthropists and altruistic volunteers, social workers are obligated to operate from a scientific knowledge base.

To know whether their programs are effective, social workers must conduct research to determine results, aggregate those results into comprehensible data, analyze and interpret their findings, and use evidence to justify next steps.

Employing the proper design ensures that any evidence obtained during research enables social workers to reliably answer their research questions.

Research Methods in Social Work

The various social work research methods have specific benefits and limitations determined by context. Common research methods include surveys, program evaluations, needs assessments, randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies and single-system designs.

Surveys involve a hypothesis and a series of questions in order to test that hypothesis. Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends.

Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable. However, surveys generally require large participant groups, and self-reports from survey respondents are not always reliable.

Program Evaluations

Social workers ally with all sorts of programs: after-school programs, government initiatives, nonprofit projects and private programs, for example.

Crucially, social workers must evaluate a program’s effectiveness in order to determine whether the program is meeting its goals and what improvements can be made to better serve the program’s target population.

Evidence-based programming helps everyone save money and time, and comparing programs with one another can help social workers make decisions about how to structure new initiatives. Evaluating programs becomes complicated, however, when programs have multiple goal metrics, some of which may be vague or difficult to assess (e.g., “we aim to promote the well-being of our community”).

Needs Assessments

Social workers use needs assessments to identify services and necessities that a population lacks access to.

Common social work populations that researchers may perform needs assessments on include:

People in a specific income group
Everyone in a specific geographic region
A specific ethnic group
People in a specific age group

In the field, a social worker may use a combination of methods (e.g., surveys and descriptive studies) to learn more about a specific population or program. Social workers look for gaps between the actual context and a population’s or individual’s “wants” or desires.

For example, a social worker could conduct a needs assessment with an individual with cancer trying to navigate the complex medical-industrial system. The social worker may ask the client questions about the number of hours they spend scheduling doctor’s appointments, commuting and managing their many medications. After learning more about the specific client needs, the social worker can identify opportunities for improvements in an updated care plan.

In policy and program development, social workers conduct needs assessments to determine where and how to effect change on a much larger scale. Integral to social work at all levels, needs assessments reveal crucial information about a population’s needs to researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders. Needs assessments may fall short, however, in revealing the root causes of those needs (e.g., structural racism).

Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials are studies in which a randomly selected group is subjected to a variable (e.g., a specific stimulus or treatment) and a control group is not. Social workers then measure and compare the results of the randomized group with the control group in order to glean insights about the effectiveness of a particular intervention or treatment.

Randomized controlled trials are easily reproducible and highly measurable. They’re useful when results are easily quantifiable. However, this method is less helpful when results are not easily quantifiable (i.e., when rich data such as narratives and on-the-ground observations are needed).

Descriptive Studies

Descriptive studies immerse the researcher in another context or culture to study specific participant practices or ways of living. Descriptive studies, including descriptive ethnographic studies, may overlap with and include other research methods:

Informant interviews
Census data
Observation

By using descriptive studies, researchers may glean a richer, deeper understanding of a nuanced culture or group on-site. The main limitations of this research method are that it tends to be time-consuming and expensive.

Single-System Designs

Unlike most medical studies, which involve testing a drug or treatment on two groups — an experimental group that receives the drug/treatment and a control group that does not — single-system designs allow researchers to study just one group (e.g., an individual or family).

Single-system designs typically entail studying a single group over a long period of time and may involve assessing the group’s response to multiple variables.

For example, consider a study on how media consumption affects a person’s mood. One way to test a hypothesis that consuming media correlates with low mood would be to observe two groups: a control group (no media) and an experimental group (two hours of media per day). When employing a single-system design, however, researchers would observe a single participant as they watch two hours of media per day for one week and then four hours per day of media the next week.

These designs allow researchers to test multiple variables over a longer period of time. However, similar to descriptive studies, single-system designs can be fairly time-consuming and costly.

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

Social workers have the opportunity to improve the social environment by advocating for the vulnerable — including children, older adults and people with disabilities — and facilitating and developing resources and programs.

Learn more about how you can earn your Master of Social Work online at Virginia Commonwealth University . The highest-ranking school of social work in Virginia, VCU has a wide range of courses online. That means students can earn their degrees with the flexibility of learning at home. Learn more about how you can take your career in social work further with VCU.

From M.S.W. to LCSW: Understanding Your Career Path as a Social Worker

How Palliative Care Social Workers Support Patients With Terminal Illnesses

How to Become a Social Worker in Health Care

Gov.uk, Mixed Methods Study

MVS Open Press, Foundations of Social Work Research

Open Social Work Education, Scientific Inquiry in Social Work

Open Social Work, Graduate Research Methods in Social Work: A Project-Based Approach

Routledge, Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to Methods

SAGE Publications, Research Methods for Social Work: A Problem-Based Approach

Theory and Society, Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be

READY TO GET STARTED WITH OUR ONLINE M.S.W. PROGRAM FORMAT?

Bachelor’s degree is required.

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

20.1 Introduction to qualitative rigor

We hear a lot about fake news these days. Fake news has to do with the quality of journalism that we are consuming. It begs questions like: does it contain misinformation, is it skewed or biased in its portrayal of stories, does it leave out certain facts while inflating others. If we take this news at face value, our opinions and actions may be intentionally manipulated by poor quality information. So, how do we avoid or challenge this? The oversimplified answer is, we find ways to check for quality. While this isn’t a chapter dedicated to fake news, it does offer an important comparison for the focus of this chapter, rigor in qualitative research. Rigor is concerned with the quality of research that we are designing and consuming. While I devote a considerable amount of time in my clinical class talking about the importance of adopting a non-judgmental stance in practice, that is not the case here; I want you to be judgmental, critical thinkers about research! As a social worker who will hopefully be producing research (we need you!) and definitely consuming research, you need to be able to differentiate good science from rubbish science. Rigor will help you to do this.

what is the importance of qualitative research in social work

This chapter will introduce you to the concept of rigor and specifically, what it looks like in qualitative research. We will begin by considering how rigor relates to issues of ethics and how thoughtfully involving community partners in our research can add additional dimensions in planning for rigor. Next, we will look at rigor in how we capture and manage qualitative data, essentially helping to ensure that we have quality raw data to work with for our study. Finally, we will devote time to discussing how researchers, as human instruments, need to maintain accountability throughout the research process. Finally, we will examine tools that encourage this accountability and how they can be integrated into your research design. Our hope is that by the end of this chapter, you will begin to be able to identify some of the hallmarks of quality in qualitative research, and if you are designing a qualitative research proposal, that you consider how to build these into your design.

19.1 Introduction to qualitative rigor

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

Identify the role of rigor in qualitative research and important concepts related to qualitative rigor
Discuss why rigor is an important consideration when conducting, critiquing and consuming qualitative research
Differentiate between quality in quantitative and qualitative research studies

In Chapter 11 we talked about quality in quantitative studies, but we built our discussion around concepts like reliability and validity . With qualitative studies, we generally think about quality in terms of the concept of rigor . The difference between quality in quantitative research and qualitative research extends beyond the type of data (numbers vs. words/sounds/images). If you sneak a peek all the way back to Chapter 7 , we discussed the idea of different paradigms or fundamental frameworks for how we can think about the world. These frameworks value different kinds of knowledge, arrive at knowledge in different ways, and evaluate the quality of knowledge with different criteria. These differences are essential in differentiating qualitative and quantitative work.

Quantitative research generally falls under a positivist paradigm, seeking to uncover knowledge that holds true across larger groups of people. To accomplish this, we need to have tools like reliability and validity to help produce internally consistent and externally generalizable findings (i.e. was our study design dependable and do our findings hold true across our population).

In contrast, qualitative research is generally considered to fall into an alternative paradigm (other than positivist), such as the interpretive paradigm which is focused on the subjective experiences of individuals and their unique perspectives. To accomplish this, we are often asking participants to expand on their ideas and interpretations. A positivist tradition requires the information collected to be very focused and discretely defined (i.e. closed questions with prescribed categories). With qualitative studies, we need to look across unique experiences reflected in the data and determine how these experiences develop a richer understanding of the phenomenon we are studying, often across numerous perspectives.

Rigor is a concept that reflects the quality of the process used in capturing, managing, and analyzing our data as we develop this rich understanding. Rigor helps to establish standards through which qualitative research is critiqued and judged, both by the scientific community and by the practitioner community.

For the scientific community, people who review qualitative research studies submitted for publication in scientific journals or for presentations at conferences will specifically look for indications of rigor, such as the tools we will discuss in this chapter. This confirms for them that the researcher(s) put safeguards in place to ensure that the research took place systematically and that consumers can be relatively confident that the findings are not fabricated and can be directly connected back to the primary sources of data that was gathered or the secondary data that was analyzed.

As a note here, as we are critiquing the research of others or developing our own studies, we also need to recognize the limitations of rigor. No research design is flawless and every researcher faces limitations and constraints. We aren’t looking for a researcher to adopt every tool we discuss below in their design. In fact, one of my mentors, speaks explicitly about “misplaced rigor”, that is, using techniques to support rigor that don’t really fit what you are trying to accomplish with your research design. Suffice it to say that we can go overboard in the area of rigor and it might not serve our study’s best interest. As a consumer or evaluator of research, you want to look for steps being taken to reflect quality and transparency throughout the research process, but they should fit within the overall framework of the study and what it is trying to accomplish.

From the perspective of a practitioner, we also need to be acutely concerned with the quality of research. Social work has made a commitment, outlined in our Code of Ethics (NASW,2017) , to competent practice in service to our clients based on “empirically based knowledge” (subsection 4.01). When I think about my own care providers, I want them to be using “good” research—research that we can be confident was conducted in a credible way and whose findings are honestly and clearly represented. Don’t our clients deserve the same from us?

As providers, we will be looking to qualitative research studies to provide us with information that helps us better understand our clients, their experiences, and the problems they encounter. As such, we need to look for research that accurately represents:

Who is participating in the study
What circumstances is the study being conducted under
What is the research attempting to determine

Further, we want to ensure that:

Findings are presented accurately and reflect what was shared by participants ( raw data )
A reasonably good explanation of how the researcher got from the raw data to their findings is presented
The researcher adequately considered and accounted for their potential influence on the research process

As we talk about different tools we can use to help establish qualitative rigor, I will try to point out tips for what to look for as you are reading qualitative studies that can reflect these. While rigor can’t “prove” quality, it can demonstrate steps that are taken that reflect thoughtfulness and attention on the part of the researcher(s). This is a link from the American Psychological Association on the topic of reviewing qualitative research manuscripts. It’s a bit beyond the level of critiquing that I would expect from a beginning qualitative research student, however, it does provide a really nice overview of this process. Even if you aren’t familiar with all the terms, I think it can be helpful in giving an overview of the general thought process that should be taking place.

To begin breaking down how to think about rigor, I find it helpful to have a framework to help understand different concepts that support or are associated with rigor. Lincoln and Guba (1985) have suggested such a framework for thinking about qualitative rigor that has widely contributed to standards that are often employed for qualitative projects. The overarching concept around which this framework is centered is trustworthiness . Trustworthiness is reflective of how much stock we should put in a given qualitative study—is it really worth our time, headspace, and intellectual curiosity? A study that isn’t trustworthy suggests poor quality resulting from inadequate forethought, planning, and attention to detail in how the study was carried out. This suggests that we should have little confidence in the findings of a study that is not trustworthy.

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) [1] trustworthiness is grounded in responding to four key ideas and related questions to help you conceptualize how they relate to your study. Each of these concepts is discussed below with some considerations to help you to compare and contrast these ideas with more positivist or quantitative constructs of research quality.

Truth value

You have already been introduced to the concept of internal validity . As a reminder, establishing internal validity is a way to ensure that the change we observe in the dependent variable is the result of the variation in our independent variable—did we actually design a study that is truly testing our hypothesis. In much/most qualitative studies we don’t have hypotheses, independent or dependent variables, but we do still want to design a study where our audience (and ourselves) can be relatively sure that we as the researcher arrived at our findings through a systematic and scientific process, and that those findings can be clearly linked back to the data we used and not some fabrication or falsification of that data; in other words, the truth value of the research process and its findings. We want to give our readers confidence that we didn’t just make up our findings or “see what we wanted to see”.

Applicability

who we were studying
how we went about studying them
what we found

Consistency

These concepts reflect a set of standards that help to determine the integrity of qualitative studies. At the end of this chapter you will be introduced to a range of tools to help support or reflect these various standards in qualitative research. Because different qualitative designs (e.g. phenomenology, narrative, ethnographic), that you will learn more about in Chapter 22 emphasize or prioritize different aspects of quality, certain tools will be more appropriate for these designs. Since this chapter is intended to give you a general overview of rigor in qualitative studies, exploring additional resources will be necessary to best understand which of these concepts are prioritized in each type of design and which tools best support them.

Key Takeaways

Qualitative research is generally conducted within an interpretativist paradigm. This differs from the post-positivist paradigm in which most quantitative research originates. This fundamental difference means that the overarching aim of these different approaches to knowledge building differ, and consequently, our standards for judging the quality of research within these paradigms differ.
Assessing the quality of qualitative research is important, both from a researcher and a practitioner perspective. On behalf of our clients and our profession, we are called to be critical consumers of research. To accomplish this, we need strategies for assessing the scientific rigor with which research is conducted.
Trustworthiness and associated concepts, including credibility, transferablity, dependability and confirmability, provide a framework for assessing rigor or quality in qualitative research.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newberry Park, CA: Sage ↵

Rigor is the process through which we demonstrate, to the best of our ability, that our research is empirically sound and reflects a scientific approach to knowledge building.

The degree to which an instrument reflects the true score rather than error. In statistical terms, reliability is the portion of observed variability in the sample that is accounted for by the true variability, not by error. Note : Reliability is necessary, but not sufficient, for measurement validity.

The extent to which the scores from a measure represent the variable they are intended to.

a paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic

Findings form a research study that apply to larger group of people (beyond the sample). Producing generalizable findings requires starting with a representative sample.

a paradigm based on the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities

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.

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

Trustworthiness is a quality reflected by qualitative research that is conducted in a credible way; a way that should produce confidence in its findings.

Ability to say that one variable "causes" something to happen to another variable. Very important to assess when thinking about studies that examine causation such as experimental or quasi-experimental designs.

The level of confidence that research is obtained through a systematic and scientific process and that findings can be clearly connected to the data they are based on (and not some fabrication or falsification of that data).

The ability to apply research findings beyond the study sample to some broader population,

This is a synonymous term for generalizability - the ability to apply the findings of a study beyond the sample to a broader population.

The potential for qualitative research findings to be applicable to other situations or with other people outside of the research study itself.

Consistency is the idea that we use a systematic (and potentially repeatable) process when conducting our research.

a single truth, observed without bias, that is universally applicable

one truth among many, bound within a social and cultural context

The idea that qualitative researchers attempt to limit or at the very least account for their own biases, motivations, interests and opinions during the research process.

Share This Book

10 17. Qualitative data and sampling

Chapter outline.

Ethical responsibility and cultural respectfulness (7 minute read)
Critical considerations (8 minute read)
Find the right qualitative data to answer my research question (17 minute read)
How to gather a qualitative sample (21 minute read)
What should my sample look like? (9 minute read)

Content warning: examples in this chapter contain references to substance use, ageism, injustices against the Black community in research (e.g. Henrietta Lacks and Tuskegee Syphillis Study), children and their educational experiences, mental health, research bias, job loss and business closure, mobility limitations, politics, media portrayals of LatinX families, labor protests, neighborhood crime, Batten Disease (childhood disorder), transgender youth, cancer, child welfare including kinship care and foster care, Planned Parenthood, trauma and resilience, sexual health behaviors.

Now let’s change things up! In the previous chapters, we were exploring steps to create and carry out a quantitative research study. Quantitative studies are great when we want to summarize data and examine or test relationships between ideas using numbers and the power of statistics. However, qualitative research offers us a different and equally important tool. Sometimes the aim of research is to explore meaning and experience. If these are the goals of our research proposal, we are going to turn to qualitative research. Qualitative research relies on the power of human expression through words, pictures, movies, performance and other artifacts that represent these things. All of these tell stories about the human experience and we want to learn from them and have them be represented in our research. Generally speaking, qualitative research is about the gathering up of these stories, breaking them into pieces so we can examine the ideas that make them up, and putting them back together in a way that allows us to tell a common or shared story that responds to our research question. Back in Chapter 7 we talked about different paradigms.

Before plunging further into our exploration of qualitative research, I would like to suggest that we begin by thinking about some ethical, cultural and empowerment-related considerations as you plan your proposal. This is by no means a comprehensive discussion of these topics as they relate to qualitative research, but my intention is to have you think about a few issues that are relevant at each step of the qualitative process. I will begin each of our qualitative chapters with some discussion about these topics as they relate to each of these steps in the research process. These sections are specially situated at the beginning of the chapters so that you can consider how these principles apply throughout the proceeding discussion. At the end of this chapter there will be an opportunity to reflect on these areas as they apply specifically to your proposal. Now, we have already discussed research ethics back in Chapter 8 . However, as qualitative researchers we have some unique ethical commitments to participants and to the communities that they represent. Our work as qualitative researchers often requires us to represent the experiences of others, which also means that we need to be especially attentive to how culture is reflected in our research. Cultural respectfulness suggests that we approach our work and our participants with a sense of humility. This means that we maintain an open mind, a desire to learn about the cultural context of participants’ lives, and that we preserve the integrity of this context as we share our findings.

17.1 Ethical responsibility and cultural respectfulness

Learning objectives.

Learners will be able to…

Explain how our ethical responsibilities as researchers translate into decisions regarding qualitative sampling
Summarize how aspects of culture and identity may influence recruitment for qualitative studies

Representation

Representation reflects two important aspects of our work as qualitative researchers, who is present and how are they presented. First, we need to consider who we are including or excluding in or sample. Recruitment and sampling is especially tied to our ethical mandate as researchers to uphold the principle of justice under the Belmont Report [1] (see Chapter 6 for additional information). Within this context we need to:

Assure there is fair distribution of risks and benefits related to our research
Be conscientious in our recruitment efforts to support equitable representation
Ensure that special protections to vulnerable groups involved in research activities are in place

As you plan your qualitative research study, make sure to consider who is invited and able to participate and who is not. These choices have important implications for your findings and how well your results reflect the population you are seeking to represent. There may be explicit exclusions that don’t allow certain people to participate, but there may also be unintended reasons people are excluded (e.g. transportation, language barriers, access to technology, lack of time).

The second part of representation has to do with how we disseminate our findings and how this reflects on the population we are studying. We will speak further about this aspect of representation in Chapter 21 , which is specific to qualitative research dissemination. For now, it is enough to know that we need to be thoughtful about who we attempt to recruit and how effectively our resultant sample reflects our population.

Being mindful of history

As you plan for the recruitment of your sample, be mindful of the history of how this group (and/or the individuals you may be interacting with) has been treated – not just by the research community, but by others in positions of power. As researchers, we usually represent an outside influence and the people we are seeking to recruit may have significant reservations about trusting us and being willing to participate in our study (often grounded in good historical reasons—see Chapter 6 for additional information). Because of this, be very intentional in your efforts to be transparent about the purpose of your research and what it involves, why it is important to you, as well as how it can impact the community. Also, in helping to address this history, we need to make concerted efforts to get to know the communities that we research with well, including what is important to them.

Stories as sacred: How are we requesting them?

Finally, it is worth pointing out that as qualitative researchers, we have an extra layer of ethical and cultural responsibility. While quantitative research deals with numbers, as qualitative researchers, we are generally asking people to share their stories. Stories are intimate, full of depth and meaning, and can reveal tremendous amounts about who we are and what makes us tick. Because of this, we need to take special care to treat these stories as sacred. I will come back to this point in subsequent chapters, but as we go about asking for people to share their stories, we need to do so humbly.

Key Takeaways

As researchers, we need to consider how our participant communities have been treated historically, how we are representing them in the present through our research, and the implications this representation could have (intended and unintended) for their lives. We need to treat research participants and their stories with respect and humility.
When conducting qualitative research, we are asking people to share their stories with us. These “data” are personal, intimate, and often reflect the very essence of who our participants are. As researchers, we need to treat research participants and their stories with respect and humility.

17.2 Critical considerations

Assess dynamics of power in sampling design and recruitment for individual participants and participant communities
Create opportunities for empowerment through early choice points in key research design elements

Related to the previous discussion regarding being mindful of history, we also need to consider the current dynamics of power between researcher and potential participant. While we may not always recognize or feel like we are in a position of power, as researchers we hold specialized knowledge, a particular skill set, and what we do can with the data we collect can have important implications and consequences for individuals, groups, and communities. All of these contribute to the formation of a role ascribed with power. It is important for us to consider how this power is perceived and whenever possible, how we can build opportunities for empowerment that can be built into our research design. Examples of some strategies include:

Recruiting and meeting in spaces that are culturally acceptable
Finding ways to build participant choice into the research process
Working with a community advisory group during the research process (explained further in the example box below)
Designing informative and educational materials that help to thoroughly explain the research process in meaningful ways
Regularly checking with participants for understanding
Asking participants what they would like to get out of their participation and what it has been like to participate in our research
Determining if there are ways that we can contribute back to communities beyond our research (developing an ongoing commitment to collaboration and reciprocity)

While it may be beyond the scope of a student research project to address all of these considerations, I do think it is important that we start thinking about these more in our research practices. As social work researchers, we should be modeling empowerment practices in the field of social science research, but we often fail to meet this standard.

Example. A community advisory group can be a tremendous asset throughout our research process, but especially in early stages of planning, including recruitment. I was fortunate enough to have a community advisory group for one of the projects I worked on. They were incredibly helpful as I considered different perspectives I needed to include in my study, helping me to think through a respectful way to approach recruitment, and how we might make the research arrangement a bit more reciprocal so community members might benefit as well.

Intersectional identity

As qualitative researchers, we are often not looking to prove a hypothesis or uncover facts. Instead, we are generally seeking to expand our understanding of the breadth and depth of human experience. Breadth is reflected as we seek to uncover variation across participants and depth captures variation or detail within each participants’ story. Both are important for generating the fullest picture possible for our findings. For example, we might be interested in learning about people’s experience living in an assisted living facility by interviewing residents. We would want to capture a range of different residents’ experiences (breadth) and for each resident, we would seek as much detail as possible (depth). Do note, sometimes our research may only involve one person, such as in a case study . However, in these instances we are usually trying to understand many aspects or dimensions of that single case.

To capture this breadth and depth we need to remember that people are made of multiple stories formed by intersectional identities . This means that our participants never just represent one homogeneous social group. We need to consider the various aspects of our population that will help to give the most complete representation in our sample as we go about recruitment.

Identify a population you are interested in studying. This might be a population you are working with at your field placement (either directly or indirectly), a group you are especially interested in learning more about, or a community you want to serve in the future. As you formulate your question, you may draw your sample directly from clients that are being served, others in their support network, service providers that are providing services, or other stakeholders that might be invested in the well-being of this group or community. Below, list out two populations you are interested in studying and then for each one, think about two groups connected with this population that you might focus your study on.

Next, think about what would kind of information might help you understand this group better. If you had the chance to sit down and talk with them, what kinds of things would you want to ask? What kinds of things would help you understand their perspective or their worldview more clearly? What kinds of things do we need to learn from them and their experiences that could help us to be better social workers? For each of the groups you identified above, write out something you would like to learn from their experience.

Finally, consider how this group might perceive a request to participate. For the populations and the groups that you have identified, think about the following questions:

How have these groups been represented in the news?
How have these groups been represented in popular culture and popular media?
What historical or contemporary factors might influence these group members’ opinions of research and researchers?
In what ways have these groups been oppressed and how might research or academic institutions have contributed to this oppression?

Our impact on the qualitative process

It is important for qualitative research to thoughtfully plan for and attempt to capture our own impact on the research process. This influence that we can have on the research process represents what is known as researcher bias . This requires that we consider how we, as human beings, influence the research we conduct. This starts at the very beginning of the research process, including how we go about sampling. Our choices throughout the research process are driven by our unique values, experiences, and existing knowledge of how the world works. To help capture this contribution, qualitative researchers may plan to use tools like a reflexive journal , which is a research journal that helps the researcher to reflect on and consider their thoughts and reactions to the research process and how these may influence or shape a study (there will be more about this tool in Chapter 20 when we discuss the concept of rigor ). While this tool is not specific to the sampling process, the next few chapters will suggest reflexive journal questions to help you think through how it might be used as you develop a qualitative proposal.

Example. To help demonstrate the potential for researcher bias, consider a number of students that I work with who are placed in school systems for their field experience and choose to focus their research proposal in this area. Some are interested in understanding why parents or guardians aren’t more involved in their children’s educational experience. While this might be an interesting topic, I would encourage students to consider what kind of biases they might have around this issue.

What expectations do they have about parenting?
What values do they attach to education and how it should be supported in the home?
How has their own upbringing shaped their expectations?
What do they know about the families that the school district serves and how did they come by this information?
How are these families’ life experiences different from their own?

The answers to these questions may unconsciously shape the early design of the study, including the research question they ask and the sources of data they seek out. For instance, their study may only focus on the behaviors and the inclinations of the families, but do little to investigate the role that the school plays in engagement and other structural barriers that might exist (e.g. language, stigma, accessibility, child-care, financial constraints, etc.).

As researchers, we wield (sometimes subtle) power and we need to be conscientious of how we use and distribute this power.
Qualitative study findings represent complex human experiences. As good as we may be, we are only going to capture a relatively small window into these experiences (and need to be mindful of this when discussing our findings).

In the early stages of your research process, it is a good idea to start your reflexive journal . Starting a reflexive journal is as easy as opening up a new word document, titling it and chronologically dating your entries. If you are more tactile-oriented, you can also keep your reflexive journal in paper bound journal.

To prompt your initial entry, put your thoughts down in response to the following questions:

What led you to be interested in this topic?
What experience(s) do you have in this area?
What knowledge do you have about this issue and how did you come by this knowledge?
In what ways might you be biased about this topic?

Don’t answer this last question too hastily! Our initial reaction is often—”Biased!?! Me—I don’t have a biased bone in my body! I have an open-mind about everything, toward everyone!” After all, much of our social work training directs us towards acceptance and working to understand the perspectives of others. However, WE ALL HAVE BIASES . These are conscious or subconscious preferences that lead us to favor some things over others. These preferences influence the choices we make throughout the research process. The reflexive journal helps us to reflect on these preferences, where they might stem from, and how they might be influencing our research process. For instance, I conduct research in the area of mental health. Before I became a researcher, I was a mental health clinician, and my years as a mental health practitioner created biases for me that influence my approach to research. For instance, I may be biased in perceiving mental health services as being well-intentioned and helpful. However, participants may well have very different perceptions based on their experiences or beliefs (or those of their loved ones).

17.3 Finding the right qualitative data to answer my research question

Compare different types of qualitative data
Begin to formulate decisions as they build their qualitative research proposal, specially in regards to selecting types of data that can effectively answer their research question

Sampling starts with deciding on the type of data you will be using. Qualitative research may use data from a variety of sources. Sources of qualitative data may come from interviews or focus groups , observations , a review of written documents, administrative data, or other forms of media, and performances. While some qualitative studies rely solely on one source of data, others incorporate a variety.

You should now be well acquainted with the term triangulation . When thinking about triangulation in qualitative research, we are often referring to our use of multiple sources of data among those listed above to help strengthen the confidence we have in our findings. Drawing on a journalism metaphor, this allows us to “fact check” our data to help ensure that we are getting the story correct. This can mean that we use one type of data (like interviews), but we intentionally plan to get a diverse range of perspectives from people we know will see things differently. In this case we are using triangulation of perspectives. In addition, we may also you a variety of different types of data, like including interviews, data from case records, and staff meeting minutes all as data sources in the same study. This reflects triangulation through types of data.

As a student conducting research, you may not always have access to vulnerable groups or communities in need, or it may be unreasonable for you to collect data from them directly due to time, resource, or knowledge constraints. Because of this, as you are reviewing the sections below, think about accessible alternative sources of data that will still allow you to answer your research question practically, and I will provide some examples along the way to get you started. In the above example, local media coverage might be a means of obtaining data that does not involve vulnerable directly collecting data from potentially vulnerable participants.

Verbal data

Perhaps the bread an d butter of t he qualitative researche r, we often rely on what people tell us as a primary source of information for qualitative studies in the form of verbal data. The researcher who schedules interviews with recipients of public assistance to capture their experience after legislation drastically changes requirements for benefits relies on the communication between the researcher and the impacted recipients of public assistance. Focus groups are another frequently used method of gathering verbal data. Focus groups bring together a group of participants to discuss their unique perspectives and explore commonalities on a given topic. One such example is a researcher who brings together a group of child welfare workers who have been in the field for one to two years to ask them questions regarding their preparation, experiences, and perceptions regarding their work.

A benefit of utilizing verbal data is that it offers an opportunity for researchers to hear directly from participants about their experiences, opinions, or understanding of a given topic. Of course, this requires that participants be willing to share this information with a researcher and that the information shared is genuine. If groups of participants are unwilling to participate in sharing verbal data or if participants share information that somehow misrepresents their feelings (perhaps because they feel intimidated by the research process), then our qualitative sample can become biased and lead to inaccurate or partially accurate findings.

As noted above, participant willingness and honesty can present challenges for qualitative researchers. You may face similar challenges as a student gathering verbal data directly from participants who have been personally affected by your research topic. Because of this, you might want to gather verbal data from other sources. Many of the students I work with are placed in schools. It is not feasible for them to interview the youth they work with directly, so frequently they will interview other professionals in the school, such as teachers, counselors, administration, and other staff. You might also consider interviewing other social work students about their perceptions or experiences working with a particular g roup.

Again, because it may be problematic or unrealistic for you to obtain verbal data directly from vulnerable groups as a student researcher, you might consider gathering verbal data from the following sources:

Interviews and focus groups with providers, social work students, faculty, the general public, administrators, local politicians, advocacy groups
Public blogs of people invested in your topic
Publicly available transcripts from interviews with experts in the area or people reporting experiences in popular media

Make sure to consult with your professor to ensure that what you are planning will be realistic for the purposes of your study.

Observational data

As researcher s, we sometimes rely on our own powers of observation to gather data on a particular topic. We may observe a person’s behavior, an interaction, setting, context, and maybe even our own reactions to what we are observing (i.e. what we are thinking or feeling). When observational data is used for quantitative purposes, it involves a count, such as how many times a certain behavior occurs for a child in a classroom. However, when observational data is used for qualitative purposes, it involves the researcher providing a detailed description. For instance, a qualitative researcher may conduct observations of how mothers and children interact in child and adolescent cancer units, and take notes about where exchanges take place, topics of conversation, nonverbal information, and data about the setting itself – what the unit looks like, how it is arranged, the lighting, photos on the wall, etc.

Observational data can provide important contextual information that may not be captured when we rely solely on verbal data. However, using this form of data requires us, as researchers, to correctly observe and interpret what is going on. As we don’t have direct access to what participants may be thinking or feeling to aid us (which can lead us to misinterpret or create a biased representation of what we are observing), our take on this situation may vary drastically from that of another person observing the same thing. For instance, if we observe two people talking and one begins crying, how do we know if these are tears of joy or sorrow? When you observe someone being abrupt in a conversation, I might interpret that as the person being rude while you might perceive that the person is distracted or preoccupied with something. The point is, we can’t know for sure. Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of gathering observational data is collecting neutral, objective observations, that are not laden with our subjective value judgments placed on them. Students often find this out in class during one of our activities. For this activity, they have to go out to public space and write down observations about what they observe. When they bring them back to class and we start discussing them together, we quickly realize how often we make (unfounded) judgments. Frequent examples from our class include determining the race/ethnicity of people they observe or the relationships between people, without any confirmational knowledge. Additionally, they often describe scenarios with adverbs and adjectives that often reflect judgments and values they are placing on their data. I’m not sharing this to call them out, in fact, they do a great job with the assignment. I just want to demonstrate that as human beings, we are often less objective than we think we are! These are great examples of research bias.

Again, gaining access to observational spaces, especially private ones, might be a challenge for you as a student. As such, you might consider if observing public spaces might be an option. If you do opt for this, make sure you are not violating anyone’s right to privacy. For instance, gathering information in a narcotics anonymous meeting or a religious celebration might be perceived as offensive, invasive or in direct opposition to values (like anonymity) of participants. When making observations in public spaces be careful not to gather any information that might identify specific individuals or organizations. Also, it is important to consider the influence your presence may have on a community, particularly if your observation makes you stand out among those typically present in that setting. Always consider the needs of the individual and the communities in formulating a plan for observing public behavior. Public spaces might include commercial spaces or events open to the public as well as municipal parks. Below we will have an expanded discussion about different varieties of non-probability sampling strategies that apply to qualitative research. Recruiting in public spaces like these may work for strategies such as convenience sampling or quota sampling , but would not be a good choice for snowball sampling or purposive sampling .

As with the cautionary note for student researchers under verbal data, you may experience restricted access to spaces in which you are able to gather observational data. However, if you do determine that observational data might be a good fit for your student proposal, you might consider the following spaces:

Shopping malls
Public parks or beaches
Public meetings or rallies
Public transportation

Artifacts (documents & other media)

Existing artifacts can also be very useful for the qualitative researcher. Examples include newspapers, blogs, websites, podcasts, television shows, movies, pictures, video recordings, artwork, and live performances. While many of these sources may provide indirect information on a topic, this information can still be quite valuable in capturing the sentiment of popular culture and thereby help researchers enhance their understanding of (dominant) societal values and opinions. Conversely, researchers can intentionally choose to seek out divergent, unique or controversial perspectives by searching for artifacts that tend to take up positions that differ from the mainstream, such as independent publications and (electronic) newsletters. While we will explore this further below, it is important to understand that data and research, in all its forms, is political. Among many other purposes, it is used to create, critique, and change policy; to engage in activism; to support and refute how organizations function; and to sway public opinion.

When utilizing documents and other media as artifacts, researchers may choose to use an entire source (such as a book or movie), or they may use a segment or portion of that artifact (such as the front-page stories from newspapers, or specific scenes in a television series). Your choice of which artifacts you choose to include will be driven by your question, and remember, you want your sample of artifacts to reflect the diversity of perspectives that may exist in the population you are interested in. For instance, perhaps I am interested in studying how various forms of media portray substance use treatment. I might intentionally include a range of liberal to conservative views that are portrayed across a number of media sources.

As qualitative researchers using artifacts, we often need to do some digging to understand the context of said artifact. We do this because data is almost always affiliated or aligned with some position (again, data is political). To help us consider this, it may be helpful to reflect on the following questions:

Who owns the artifact or where is it housed
What values does the owner (organization or person) hold
How might the position or identity of the owner influence what information is shared or how it is portrayed
What is the purpose of the artifact
Who is the audience for which the artifact is intended

Answers to questions such as these can help us to b etter under stand and give meaning to the content of the artifacts. Content is the substance of the artifact (e.g. the wor ds, picture, scene). While c ontext is the circumstances surrounding content. Both work together to help provide meaning, and further understanding of what can be derived from an artifact. As an example to illustrate this point, let’s say that you are including meeting minutes from an organizing network as a source of data for your study. The narrative description in these minutes will certainly be important, however, they may not tell the whole story. For instance, you might not know from the text that the organization has recently voted in a new president and this has created significant division within the network. Knowing this information might help you to interpret the agenda and the discussion contained in the minutes very differently.

Content and context as concentric circles, with context being the larger circle. Arrow between the two suggesting interaction to produce meaning. interaction to produce meaning

As student researchers, using documents and other artifacts may be a particularly appealing source of data for your study. This is because this data already exists (you aren’t creating new data) and depending on what you select, it might be relatively easy to access. Examples of utilizing existing artifacts might include studying the cultural context of movie portrayals of Latinx families or analyzing publicly available town hall meeting minutes to explore expressions of social capital. Below is a list of sources of data from documents or other media sources to consider for your student proposal:

Movies or TV shows
Music or music videos
Public blogs
Policies or other organizational documents
Meeting minutes
Comments in online forums
Books, newspapers, magazines, or other print/virtual text-based materials
Recruitment, training, or educational materials
Musical or artistic expressions

Finally, Photovoice is a technique that merges pictures with narrative (word or voice) data that helps interpret the meaning or significance of the visual. Photovoice is often used for qualitative work that is conducted as part of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR), wherein community members act as both participants and as co-researchers. These community members are provided with a means of capturing images that reflect their understanding of some topic, prompt or question, and then they are asked to provide a narrative description or interpretation to help give meaning to the image(s). Both the visual and n arrative information are used as qualitative data to include in the study. Dissemination of Photovoice projects often involve a public display of the works, such as through a demonstration or art exhibition to raise awareness or to produce some specific change that is desired by participants. Because this form of study is often intentionally persuasive in nature, we need to recognize that this form of data will be inherently subjective. As a student, it may be particularly challenging to implement a Photovoice project, especially due to its time-intensive nature, as well as the additional commitments of needing to engage, train, and collaborate with community partners.

How many kinds of data?

You will need to consider whether you will rely on one kind of data or multiple. While many qualitative studies solely use one type of data, such as interviews or focus groups, others may use multiple sources. The decision to use multiple sources is often made to help strengthen the confidence we have in our findings or to help us to produce a richer, more detailed description of our results. For instance, if we are conducting a case study of what the family experience is for a child with a very rare disorder like Batten Disease , we may use multiple sources of data. These can include observing family and community interactions, conducting interviews with family members and others connected to the family (such as service providers,) and examining journal entries families were asked to keep over the course of the study. By collecting data from a variety of sources such as this, we can more broadly represent a range of perspectives when answering our research question, which will hopefully provide a more holistic picture of the family experience. However, if we are trying to examine the decision-making processes of adult protective workers, it may make the most sense to rely on just one type of data, such as interviews with adult protective workers.

There are numerous types of qualitative data (verbal, observational, artifacts) that we may be able to access when planning a qualitative study. As we plan, we need to consider the strengths and challenges that each possess and how well each type might answer our research question.
The use of multiple types of qualitative data does add complexity to a study, but this complication may well be worth it to help us explore multiple dimensions of our topic and thereby enrich our findings.

Reflexive Journal Entry Prompt

For your next entry, consider responding to the following:

What types of data appeal to you?
Why do you think you are drawn to them?
How well does this type of data “fit” as a means of answering your question? Why?

17.4 How to gather a qualitative sample

Compare and contrast various non-probability sampling approaches
Select a sampling strategy that ideologically fits the research question and is practical/actionable

Before we launch into how to plan our sample, I’m going to take a brief moment to remind us of the philosophical basis surrounding the purpose of qualitative research—not to punish you, but because it has important implications for sampling.

Nomothetic vs. idiographic

As a quick reminder, as we discussed in Chapter 8 idiographic research aims to develop a rich or deep understanding of the individual or the few. The focus is on capturing the uniqueness of a smaller sample in a comprehensive manner. For example, an idiographic study might be a good approach for a case study examining the experiences of a transgender youth and her family living in a rural Midwestern state. Data for this idiographic study would be collected from a range of sources, including interviews with family members, observations of family interactions at home and in the community, a focus group with the youth and her friend group, another focus group with the mother and her social network, etc. The aim would be to gain a very holistic picture of this family’s experiences.

On the other hand, nomothetic research is invested in trying to uncover what is ‘true’ for many. It seeks to develop a general understanding of a very specific relationship between variables. The aim is to produce generalizable findings, or findings that apply to a large group of people. This is done by gathering a large sample and looking at a limited or restricted number of aspects. A nomothetic study might involve a national survey of heath care providers in which thousands of providers are surveyed regarding their current knowledge and comp etence in treating transgender individuals. It would gather data from a very large number of people, and attempt to highlight some general findings across this population on a very focused topic.

Idiographic and nomothetic research represent two different research categories existing at opposite extremes on a continuum. Qualitative research generally exists on the idiographic end of this continuum. We are most often seeking to obtain a rich, deep, detailed understanding from a relatively small group of people.

Figure 17.2 Idiographic vs. Nomothetic provides a visual where by idiographic there are a few figures with many different thought bubbles above them, and with nomothetic there are many people with one single thought bubble.

Non-probability sampling

Non-probability sampling refers to sampling techniques for which a person’s (or event’s) likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown. Because we don’t know the likelihood of selection, we don’t know whether a sample represents a larger population or not. But that’s okay, because representing the population is not the goal of nonprobability samples. That said, the fact that nonprobability samples do not represent a larger population does not mean that they are drawn arbitrarily or without any specific purpose in mind. We typically use nonprobability samples in research projects that are qualitative in nature. We will examine several types of nonprobability samples. These include purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples.

Convenience or availability

Convenience sampling, also known as availability sampling, is a nonprobability sampling strategy that is employed by both qualitative and quantitative researchers. To draw a convenience sample, we would simply collect data from those people or other relevant elements to which we have the most convenient access. While convenience samples offer one major benefit—convenience—we should be cautious about generalizing from research that relies on convenience samples because we have no confidence that the sample is representative of a broader population. If you are a social work student who needs to conduct a research project at your field placement setting and you decide to conduct a focus group with the staff at your agency, you are using a convenience sampling approach – you are recruiting participants that are easily accessible to you. In addition, if you elect to analyze existing data that your social work program has collected as part of their graduation exit surveys, you are using data that you readily have access to for your project; again, you have a convenience sample. The vast majority of students I work with on their proposal design rely on convenience data due to time constraints and limited resources.

To draw a purposive sample, we begin with specific perspectives or purposive criteria in mind that we want to examine. We would then seek out research participants who cover that full range of perspectives. For example, if you are studying mental health supports on your campus, you may want to be sure to include not only students, but mental health practitioners and student affairs administrators as well. You might also select students who currently use mental health supports, those who dropped out of supports, and those who are waiting to receive supports. The “purposive” part of purposive sampling comes from selecting specific participants on purpose because you already know they have certain characteristics—being an administrator, dropping out of mental health supports, for example—that you need in your sample.

Note that these differ from inclusion criteria , which are more general requirements a person must possess to be a part of your sample; to be a potential participant that may or may not be sampled. For example, one of the inclusion criteria for a study of your campus’ mental health supports might be that participants had to have visited the mental health center in the past year. That differs from purposive sampling. In purposive sampling, you know characteristics of individuals and recruit them because of those characteristics. For example, I might recruit Jane because she stopped seeking supports this month, because she has worked at the center for many years, and so forth.

Also, it’s important to recognize that purposive sampling requires you to have prior information about your participants before recruiting them because you need to know their perspectives or experiences before you know whether you want them in your sample. This is a common mistake that many students make. What I often hear is, “I’m using purposive sampling because I’m recruiting people from the health center,” or something like that. That’s not purposive sampling. In most instances they really mean they are going to use convenience sampling-taking whoever they can recruit that fit the inclusion criteria (i.e. have attended the mental health center). Purposive sampling is recruiting specific people because of the various characteristics and perspectives they bring to your sample. Imagine we were creating a focus group. A purposive sample might gather clinicians, patients, administrators, staff, and former patients together so they can talk as a group. Purposive sampling would seek out people that have each of those attributes.

If you are considering using a purposive sampling approach for your research proposal, you will need to determine what your purposive criteria involves. There are a range of different purposive strategies that might be employed, including: maximum variation , typical case , extreme case , or political case , and you want to be thoughtful in thinking about which one(s) you select and why.

It can be a bit tricky determining how to approach or formulate your purposive cases. Below are a couple additional resources to explore this strategy further.

For more information on purposive sampling consult this webpage from Laerd Statistics on purposive sampling and this webpage from the University of Connecticut on education research .

When using snowball sampling , we might know one or two people we’d like to include in our study but then we have to rely on those initial participants to help identify additional participants. Thus, our sample builds and grows as the study continues, much as a snowball builds and becomes larger as it rolls through the snow. Snowball sampling is an especially useful strategy when you wish to study a stigmatized group or behavior. These groups may have limited visibility and accessibility for a variety of reasons, including safety.

Malebranche and colleagues (2010) [5] were interested in studying sexual health behaviors of Black, bisexual men. Anticipating that this may be a challenging group to recruit, they utilized a snowball sampling approach. They recruited initial contacts through activities such as advertising on websites and distributing fliers strategically (e.g. barbershops, nightclubs). These initial recruits were compensated with $50 and received study information sheets and five contact cards to distribute to people in their social network that fit the study criteria. Eventually the research team was able to recruit a sample of 38 men who fit the study criteria.

Snowball sampling may present some ethical quandaries for us. Since we are essentially relying on others to help advertise for us, we are giving up some of our control over the process of recruitment. We may be worried about coercion, or having people put undue pressure to have others’ they know participate in your study. To help mitigate this, we would want to make sure that any participant we recruit understands that participation is completely voluntary and if they tell others about the studies, they should also make them aware that it is voluntary, too. In addition to coercion, we also want to make sure that people’s privacy is not violated when we take this approach. For this reason, it is good practice when using a snowball approach to provide people with our contact information as the researchers and ask that they get in touch with us, rather than the other way around. This may also help to protect again potential feelings of exploitation or feeling taken advantage of. Because we often turn to snowball sampling when our population is difficult to reach or engage, we need to be especially sensitive to why this is. It is often because they have been exploited in the past and participating in research may feel like an extension of this. To address this, we need to have a very clear and transparent informed consent process and to also think about how we can use or research to benefit the people we work in the most meaningful and tangible ways.

Quota sampling is another nonprobability sampling strategy. This type of sampling is actually employed by both qualitative and quantitative researchers, but because it is a nonprobability method, we’ll discuss it in this section. When conducting quota sampling, we identify categories that are important to our study and for which there is likely to be some variation. Subgroups are created based on each category and the researcher decides how many people (or whatever element happens to be the focus of the research) to include from each subgroup and collects data from that number for each subgroup. To demonstrate, perhaps we are interested in studying support needs for children in the foster care system. We decide that we want to examine equal numbers (seven each) of children placed in a kinship placement, a non-kinship foster placement, group home, and residential placements. We expect that the experiences and needs across these settings may differ significantly, so we want to have good representation of each one, thus setting a quota of seven for each type of placement.

As you continue to plan for your proposal, below you will find some of the strengths and challenges presented by each of these types of sampling.

Wait a minute, we need a plan!

Both qualitative and quantitative research should be planful and systematic. We’ve actually covered a lot of ground already and before we get any further, we need to start thinking about what the plan for your qualitative research proposal will look like. This means that as you develop your research proposal, you need to consider what you will be doing each step of the way: how you will find data, how you will capture it, how you will organize it, and how you will store it. If you have multiple types of data, you need to have a plan in place for each type. The plan that you develop is your data collection protocol . If you have a team of researchers (or are part of a research team), the data collection protocol is an important communication tool, making sure that everyone is clear what is going on as the research proceeds. This plan is important to help keep you and others involved in your research consistent and accountable. Throughout this chapter and the next ( Chapter 18 —qualitative data gathering) we will walk through points you will want to include in your data collection protocol. While I’ve spent a fair amount of time talking about the importance of having a plan here, qualitative design often does embrace some degree of flexibility. This flexibility is related to the concept of emergent design that we find in qualitative studies. Emergent design is the idea that some decision in our design will be dynamic and fluid as our understanding of the research question evolves. The more we learn about the topic, the more we want to understand it thoroughly.

A research protocol is a document that not only defines your research project and its aims, but also comprehensively plans how you will carry it out. If this sounds like the function of a research proposal, you are right, they are similar. What differentiates a protocol from a proposal is the level of detail. A proposal is more conceptual; a protocol is more practical (right down to the dollars and cents!). A protocol offers explicit instructions for you and your research team, any funders that may be involved in your research, and any oversight bodies that might be responsible for overseeing your study. Not every study requires a research protocol, but what I’m suggesting here is that you consider constructing at least a limited one to help though the decisions you will need to make to construct your qualitative study.

Al-Jundi and Sakka (2016) [6] provide the following elements for a research protocol :

What is the question? (Hypothesis) What is to be investigated?
Why is the study important (Significance)
Where and when will it take place?
What is the methodology? (Procedures and methods to be used).
How are you going to implement it? (Research design)
What is the proposed time table and budget?
What are the resources required (technical, scientific, and financial)?

While your research proposal in its entirety will focus on many of these areas, our attention for developing your qualitative research protocol will hone in on the two highlighted above. As we go through these next couple chapters, there will be a number of exercises that walk you though decision points that will form your qualitative research protocol.

To begin developing your qualitative research protocol:

Select the question you have decided is the best to frame your research proposal.
Write a brief paragraph about the aim of your study, ending it with the research question you have selected.

Here are a few additional resources on developing a research protocol:

Cameli et al., (2018) How to write a research protocol: Tips and tricks .

Ohio State University, Institutional Review Board (n.d.). Research protocol .

World Health Organization (n.d.). Recommended format for a research protocol .

Decision Point: What types of data will you be using?

Why is this a good choice, given your research question?
If so, provide support for this decision.

Decision Point: Which non-probability sampling strategy will you employ?

Why is this is a good fit?
What steps might your take to address these challenges?

Recruiting strategies

Much like quantitative research, recruitment for qualitative studies can take many different approaches. When considering how to draw your qualitative sample, it may be helpful to first consider which of these three general strategies will best fit your research question and general study design: public, targeted, or membership-based. While all will lead to a sample, the process for getting you there will look very different, depending on the strategy you select.

Taking a public approach to recruitment offers you access to the broadest swath of potential participants. With this approach, you are taking advantage of public spaces in an attempt to gain the attention of the general population of people that frequent that space so that they can learn about your study. These spaces can be in-person (e.g. libraries, coffee shops, grocery stores, health care settings, parks) or virtual (e.g. open chat forums, e-bulletin boards, news feeds). Furthermore, a public approach can be static (such as hanging a flier), or dynamic (such as talking to people and directly making requests to participate). While a public approach may offer broad coverage in that it attempts to appeal to an array of people, it may be perceived as impersonal or easily able to be overlooked, due to the potential presence of other announcements that may be featured in public spaces. Public recruitment is most likely to be associated with convenience or quota sampling and is unlikely to be used with purposive or snowball sampling, where we would need some advance knowledge of people and the characteristics they possess.

As an alternative, you may elect to take a targeted approach to recruitment. By targeting a select group, you are restricting your sampling frame to those individuals or groups who are potentially most well-suited to answer your research question. Additionally, you may be targeting specific people to help craft a diverse sample, particularly with respect to personal characteristics and/or opinions.

You can target your recruitment through the use of different strategies. First, you might consider the use of knowledgeable and well-connected community members. These are people who may possess a good amount of social capital in their community, which can aid in recruitment efforts. If you are considering the use of community members in this role, make sure to be thoughtful in your approach, as you are essentially asking them to share some of their social capital with you. This means learning about the community or group, approaching community members with a sense of humility, and making sure to demonstrate transparency and authenticity in your interactions. These community members may also be champions for the topic you are researching. A champion is someone who helps to draw the interest of a particular group of people. The champion often comes from within the group itself. As an example, let’s say you’re interested in studying the experiences of family members who have a loved one struggling with substance use. To aid in your recruitment for this study, you enlist the help of a local person who does a lot of work with Al-Anon, an organization facilitating mutual support groups for individuals and families affected by alcoholism.

A targeted approach can certainly help ensure that we are talking to people who are knowledgeable about the topic we are interested in, however, we still need to be aware of the potential for bias. If we target our recruitment based on connection to a particular person, event, or passion for the topic, these folks may share information that they think is viewed as favorable or that disproportionately reflects a particular perspective. This phenomenon is due to the fact that we often spend time with people who are like-minded or share many of our views. A targeted approach may be helpful for any type of non-probability sampling, but can be especially useful for purposive, quota, or snowball sampling, where we are trying to access people or groups of people with specific characteristics or expertise.

Membership-based

Finally, you might consider a membership-based approach . This approach is really a form of targeted recruitment, but may benefit from some individual attention. When using a membership-based approach, your sampling frame is the membership list of a particular organization or group. As you might have guessed, this organization or group must be well-suited for helping to answer your research question. You will need permission to access membership, and the identity of the person authorized to grant permission will depend on the organizational structure. When contacting members regarding recruitment, you may consider using directories, newsletters, listservs or membership meetings. When utilizing a membership-based approach, we often know that members possess specific inclusion criteria we need, however, because they are all associated with that particular group or organization, they may be homogenous or like-minded in other ways. This may limit the diversity in our sample and is something to be mindful of when interpreting our findings. Membership-based recruiting can be helpful when we have a membership group that fulfills our inclusion criteria. For instance, if you want to conduct research with social workers, you might attempt to recruit through the NASW membership distribution list (but this access will come with stipulations and a price tag). Membership-based recruitment may be helpful for any non-probability sampling approach, given that the membership criteria and study inclusion criteria are a close fit. Table 17.5 offers some additional considerations for each of these strategies with examples to help demonstrate sources that might correspond with them.

Qualitative research predominately relies on non-probability sampling techniques. There are a number of these techniques to choose from (convenience/availability, purposive, snowball, quota), each with advantages and limitations to consider. As we consider these, we need to reflect on both our research question and the resources we have available to us in developing a sampling strategy.
As we consider where and how we will recruit our sample, there are a range of general approaches, including public, targeted, and membership-based.

Decision Point: How will you recruit or gain access to your sample?

If you are recruiting people, how will you identify them? If necessary (and it often is), how will gain permission to do this?
If you are using documents or other artifacts for your study, how will you gain access to these? If necessary (and it often is), how will gain permission to do this?

17.5 What should my sample look like?

Explain key factors that influence the makeup of a qualitative sample
Develop and critique a sampling strategy to support their qualitative proposal

Once you have started your recruitment, you also need to know when to stop. Knowing when to stop recruiting for a qualitative research study generally involves a dynamic and reflective process. This means that you will actively be involved in a process of recruiting, collecting data, beginning to review your preliminary data, and conducting more recruitment to gather more data. You will continue this process until you have gathered enough data and included sufficient perspectives to answer your research question in rich and meaningful way.

Circle divided up in three sections, each with an arrow curving and directed to the next section, demonstrating the ongoing iterative nature of qualitative recruiting, gathering data and analyzing data (the three sections of the circle).

The sample size of qualitative studies can vary significantly. For instance, case studies may involve only one participant or event, while some studies may involve hundreds of interviews or even thousands of documents. Generally speaking, when compared to quantitative research, qualitative studies have a considerably smaller sample. Your decision regarding sample size should be guided by a few considerations, described below.

Amount of data

When gathering quantitative data, the amount of data we are gathering is often specified at the start (e.g. a fixed number of questions on a survey or a set number of indicators on a tracking form). However, when gathering qualitative data, we are often asking people to expand on and explore their thoughts and reactions to certain things. This can produce A LOT of data. If you have ever had to transcribe an interview (type out the conversation while listening to an audio recorded interview), you quickly learn that a 15-minute discussion turns into many pages of dialogue. As such, each interview or focus group you conduct represents multi-page transcripts, all of which becomes your data. If you are conducting interviews or focus groups, y ou will know you have collected enough data from each interaction when you have covered all your questions and allowed the participant(s) to share any and all ideas they have related to the topic. If you are using observational data, you need to spend sufficient time making observations and capturing data to offer a genuine and holistic representation of the thing you are observing (at least to the best of your ability). When using documents and other sources of media, again, you want to ensure that diverse perspectives are represented through your artifact choices so that your data reflects a well-rounded representation of the issue you are studying. For any of these data sources, this involves a judgment call on the researcher’s part. Your judgment should be informed by what you have read in the existing literature and consultation with your professor.

As part of your analysis, you will likely eventually break these larger hunks of data apart into words or small phrases, giving you potentially thousands of pieces of data. If you are relying on documents or other artifacts, the amount of data contained in each of these pieces is determined in advance, as they already exist. However, you will need to determine how many to include. With interviews, focus groups, or other forms of data generation (e.g. taking pictures for a photovoice project), we don’t necessarily know how much data will be generated with each encounter, as it will depend on the questions that are asked, the information that is shared, and how well we capture it.

Type of study

A variety of types of qualitative studies will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 22 . While you don’t necessarily need to have an extensive understanding of them all at this point in time, it is important that you understand which of the different design types are best for answering certain research questions. For instance, if our question involves understanding some type of experience, that is often best answered by a phenomenological design. Or, if we want to better understand some process, a grounded theory study may be best suited. While there are no hard and fast rules regarding qualitative sample size, each of these different types of designs has different guidelines for what is considered an acceptable or reasonable number to include in your sample. So drawing on the previous examples, your grounded theory study might include 45 participants because you need more people to gain a clearer picture of each step of the process, while your phenomenological study includes 20 because that provides a good representation of the experience you are interested in. Both would be reasonable targets based on the respective study design type. So as you consider your research question and which specific type of qualitative design this leads you to, you will need to do some investigation to see what size samples are recommended for that particular type of qualitative design.

Diversity of perspectives

As you consider your research question, you also may want to think about the potential variation in how your study population might view this topic. If you are conducting a case study of one person, this obviously isn’t a concern, but if you are interested in exploring a range of experiences, you want to plan to intentionally recruit so this level of diversity is reflected in your sample. The level of variation you seek will have direct implications for how big your sample might be. In the example provided above in the section on quota sampling, we wanted to ensure we had equal representation across a host of placement dispositions for children in foster care. This helped us define our target sample size: (4) settings a quota of (7) participants from each type of setting = a target sample size of (28).

In Chapter 18 , we will be talking about different approaches to data gathering, which may help to dictate the range of perspectives you want to represent. For instance, if you conduct a focus group, you want all of your participants to have some experience with the thing that you are studying, but you hope that their perspectives differ from one another. Furthermore, you may want to avoid groups of participants who know each other well in the same focus group (if possible), as this may lead to groupthink or level of familiarity that doesn’t really encourage differences being expressed. Ideally, we want to encourage a discussion where a variety of ideas are shared, offering a more complete understanding of how the topic is experienced. This is true in all forms of qualitative data, in that your findings are likely to be more well-rounded and offer a broader understanding fo the issue if you recruit a sample with diverse perspectives.

Finally, the concept of saturation has important implications for both qualitative sample size and data analysis. To understand the idea of saturation, it is first important to understand that unlike most quantitative research, with qualitative research we often at least begin the process of data analysis while we are still actively collecting data. This is called an iterative approach to data analysis. So, if you are a qualitative researcher conducting interviews, you may be aiming to complete 30 interviews. After you have completed your first five interviews, you may begin reviewing and coding (a term that refers to labeling the different ideas found in your transcripts) these interviews while you are still conducting more interviews. You go on to review each new interview that you conduct and code it for the ideas that are reflected there. Eventually, you will reach a point where conducting more interviews isn’t producing any new ideas, and this is the point of saturation. Reaching saturation is an indication that we can stop data collection. This may come before or after you hit 30, but as you can see, it is driven by the presence of new ideas or concepts in your interviews, not a specific number.

This chapter represents our transition in the text to a focus on qualitative methods in research. Throughout this chapter we have explored a number of topics including various types of qualitative data, approaches to qualitative sampling, and some considerations for recruitment and sample composition. It bears repeating that your plan for sampling should be driven by a number of things: your research question, what is feasible for you, especially as a student researcher, best practices in qualitative research. Finally, in subsequent chapters, we will continue the discussion about reflexivity as it relates to the qualitative research process that we began here.

The composition of our qualitative sample comes with some important decisions to consider, including how large should our sample be and what level and type of diversity it should reflect. These decisions are guided by the purposes or aims of our study, as well as access to resources and our population.
The concept of saturation is important for qualitative research. It helps us to determine when we have sufficiently collected a range of perspectives on the topic we are studying.

Decision Point(s): What should your sample look like (sample composition)?

If so, how many?
How was this number determined?
OR will you use the concept of saturation to determine when to stop?
What supports your decision in regards to the previous question?

This isn’t so much a decision point, but a chance for you to reflect on the choices you’ve made thus far in your protocol with regards to your: (1) ethical responsibility, (2) commitment to cultural humility, and (3) respect for empowerment of individuals and groups as a social work researcher. Think about each of the decisions you’ve made thus far and work across this grid to identify any important considerations that you need to take into account.

You have been prompted to make a number of choices regarding how you will proceed with gathering your qualitative sample. Based on what you have learned and what you are planning, respond to the following questions below.

What are the strengths of your sampling plan in respect to being able to answer your qualitative research question?
How feasible is it for you, as a student researcher, to be able to carry out your sampling plan?
What reservations or questions do you still need to have answered to adequately plan for your sample?
What excites you about your proposal thus far?
What worries you about your proposal thus far?
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html ↵
Patel, J., Tinker, A., & Corna, L. (2018). Younger workers’ attitudes and perceptions towards older colleagues. Working with Older People, 22 (3), 129-138. ↵
Veenstra, A. S., Iyer, N., Hossain, M. D., & Park, J. (2014). Time, place, technology: Twitter as an information source in the Wisconsin labor protests. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 65-72. ↵
Ohmer, M. L., & Owens, J. (2013). Using photovoice to empower youth and adults to prevent crime. Journal of Community Practice, 21 (4), 410-433. ↵
Malebranche, D. J., Arriola, K. J., Jenkins, T. R., Dauria, E., & Patel, S. N. (2010). Exploring the “bisexual bridge”: A qualitative study of risk behavior and disclosure of same-sex behavior among Black bisexual men . American Journal of Public Health, 100( 1), 159-164. ↵
Al-Jundi, A., & SakkA, S. (2016). Protocol writing in clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 10 (11), ZE10. ↵

Research that involves the use of data that represents human expression through words, pictures, movies, performance and other artifacts.

One of the three ethical principles in the Belmont Report. States that benefits and burdens of research should be distributed fairly.

Case studies are a type of qualitative research design that focus on a defined case and gathers data to provide a very rich, full understanding of that case. It usually involves gathering data from multiple different sources to get a well-rounded case description.

the various aspects or dimensions that come together in forming our identity

The unintended influence that the researcher may have on the research process.

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

Rigor is the process through which we demonstrate, to the best of our ability, that our research is empirically sound and reflects a scientific approach to knowledge building.

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.

Triangulation of data refers to the use of multiple types, measures or sources of data in a research project to increase the confidence that we have in our findings.

sampling approaches for which a person’s likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown

A convenience sample is formed by collecting data from those people or other relevant elements to which we have the most convenient access. Essentially, we take who we can get.

A quota sample involves the researcher identifying a subgroups within a population that they want to make sure to include in their sample, and then identifies a quota or target number to recruit that represent each of these subgroups.

For a snowball sample, a few initial participants are recruited and then we rely on those initial (and successive) participants to help identify additional people to recruit. We thus rely on participants connects and knowledge of the population to aid our recruitment.

In a purposive sample, participants are intentionally or hand-selected because of their specific expertise or experience.

Content is the substance of the artifact (e.g. the words, picture, scene). It is what can actually be observed.

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

Photovoice is a technique that merges pictures with narrative (word or voice data that helps that interpret the meaning or significance of the visual artifact. It is often used as a tool in CBPR.

A rich, deep, detailed understanding of a unique person, small group, and/or set of circumstances.

Inclusion criteria are general requirements a person must possess to be a part of your sample.

A purposive sampling strategy where you choose cases because they represent a range of very different perspectives on a topic

A purposive sampling strategy where you select cases that represent the most common/ a commonly held perspective.

A purposive sampling strategy that selects a case(s) that represent extreme or underrepresented perspectives. It is a way of intentionally focusing on or representing voices that may not often be heard or given emphasis.

A purposive sampling strategy that focuses on selecting cases that are important in representing a contemporary politicized issue.

A plan that is developed by a researcher, prior to commencing a research project, that details how data will be collected, stored and managed during the research project.

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.

approach to recruitment where participants are sought in public spaces

approach to recruitment where participants are based on some personal characteristic or group association

approach to recruitment where participants are members of an organization or social group with identified membership

To type out the text of recorded interview or focus group.

A qualitative research design that aims to capture and describe the lived experience of some event or "phenomenon" for a group of people.

A type of research design that is often used to study a process or identify a theory about how something works.

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.

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

What is social science?

Qualitative research.

Social scientists often want to understand how individuals think, feel or behave in particular situations, or in relations with others that develop over time. They use in-depth interviews, participant observation and other qualitative methods to gather data. Researchers might watch a school playground to observe and record bullying behaviours, or ask young people about exactly what they understood by being bullied, and how they thought it affected them.

Qualitative methods are scientific, but are focused more on the meaning of different aspects of people’s lives, and on their accounts of how they understand their own and others’ behaviour and beliefs.

Case studies (where researchers examine a small number of specific examples) and narratives (where researchers study respondents’ stories in depth) are just two examples of methods used in qualitative research.

Case studies can help researchers to explore life in different families, cultures and communities. However, in order to examine how far we can generalise the specific cases for wider society, some form of quantitative methods are often needed.

Qualitative methodologies

Some of the most common qualitative research methodologies are described here. These methodologies are widely-used in ESRC-funded research.

Semi-structured interviews

In semi-structured interviews the researcher has a small core of questions or areas they wish to explore, but will then take the questions in different directions, depending on the answers they receive. Flexibility is important with this type of interview. This method is used when seeking richly descriptive information, for example what makes a good teacher.

Unstructured interviews

Unstructured interviews are open-ended and informal. The researcher is seeking a detailed picture and tries to bring no preconceptions. This type of interview is often used in narrative research. Generally the researcher asks one question and then leaves the interviewee to talk or ‘tell their story’.

Observation

Observation relies heavily on the skills of the researcher to understand and interpret what they are seeing in an unbiased way. It might be used, for example, in education research to see how much time young people spend ‘on task’ and what they do when distracted. In this method, the researcher observes what is happening and makes field notes either at the time or soon afterwards.

Open questionnaire survey

Unlike questionnaires in quantitative research, which offer a limited range of choices, open surveys seek opinion and description in response to open-ended questions. They may be used to gather information and ideas from more people than one-to-one interviewing would allow.

Keeping logs and diaries

Researchers and participants can keep logs or diaries as a way to collect details about daily life. Participants are asked to keep detailed records of some aspect of their life, such as social activities or exercise, so the researcher later can analyse this material. Researchers also keep diaries during the period of data collection on aspects of the research, such as the context in which interviews or observation takes place. This is then used alongside other data to help them to broaden their understanding of the research findings.

Last updated: 31 March 2022

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

IMAGES

Types Of Qualitative Research Design With Examples
Understanding Qualitative Research: An In-Depth Study Guide
Qualitative Research in Social Work
Qualitative Research: Definition, Types, Methods and Examples
18 Qualitative Research Examples (2024)
Qualitative Research: Definition, Types, Methods and Examples

VIDEO

Social work research social work important topic pms urdu
Social Work Research: Steps/Procedure
Qualitative Research (social science perspective)
Social Work with Young Migrants and Youth with Immigrant Background in Helsinki, Finland
Social Work Research: Cultural Competence in Research (Chapter 6)
Ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

COMMENTS

Qualitative Research
Introduction. "Qualitative research" is a term that encompasses a wide variety of research types and methods. Its great variety makes it difficult to define and describe succinctly. This bibliography will offer a general introduction but will inevitably be incomplete. Qualitative research in the social sciences has deep roots in sociology ...
PDF Doing Qualitative Research in Social Work
70 percent of qualitative social work research relies on some form of interview as its primary method of collecting data. The authors of this article were aware ... forms of interviewing, and some important recent developments of the method. In the 'Telling Stories' chapter we give considerable space to narrative methods.
Qualitative Study
Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems.[1] Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervene or introduce treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants ...
The Nature and Usefulness of Qualitative Social Work Research:
In this commentary, the authors respond to challenges that Denzin's article poses. (See Denzin, this issue.) We draw upon our own experiences as qualitative social work researchers to reflect upon several issues, such as personal connections with research participants; the match between qualitative approaches and the complexities of practice; the roles of values such as social justice and ...
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 in Social Work Research
Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research provides accessible, how-to instruction for carrying out rigorous qualitative research. The thoroughly revised Third Edition offers a comprehensive introduction to qualitative methods based on six major approaches: ethnography, grounded theory, case study, narrative, phenomenological, and participatory action research.
Qualitative Studies in Social Work Research
Characters stand out. We do understand participants' unique experiences. . . . Social workers now have a basis for the exploration of their own qualitative studies. It is an important and timely contribution." --Smith College Studies in Social Work "This useful volume offers alternatives to the dominant quantitative paradigm in social research.
Social Work Research Methods
Social work research means conducting an investigation in accordance with the scientific method. The aim of social work research is to build the social work knowledge base in order to solve practical problems in social work practice or social policy. Investigating phenomena in accordance with the scientific method requires maximal adherence to ...
Qualitative Research in Social Work, Second Edition on JSTOR
Computer-aided qualitative data analysis has increasingly become part of research projects in social work and in allied fields (Lewins and Silver 2007; Hwang 2008; Sin 2008). At its core, computer software helps researchers organize, manage, and analyze the large volume of data common to qualitative projects.
(PDF) Qualitative Research in Social Work
Finally, we discuss some of ethical issues pertaining to qualitative research. Section 1: Characteristics of qualitative research. 1.1 Qualitative research can be defined as "multimethod in focus ...
Qualitative Social Work: Sage Journals
Qualitative Social Work provides a forum for those interested in qualitative research and evaluation and in qualitative approaches to practice. The journal facilitates interactive dialogue and integration between those interested in qualitative … | View full journal description. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics ...
Qualitative Research in Social Work
First Edition. 'The back cover of the book proclaims that "Qualitative Research in Social Work will be essential reading for all students, practitioners and researchers undertaking social work research." That just about sums it up for me' - British Journal of Social Work. `This book is a significant milestone in the development of social work ...
Full article: The journey to becoming a qualitative social work
It is important to note that most other types of qualitative research approaches, in addition to the critical approach, also allow us to understand the various contexts of research participants. ... In qualitative research and social work, ultimately, you strive to create positive change. Social workers are agents of change (Ioakimidis ...
Qualitative Research in Social Work
The main anticipated areas of focus and attention in the coming decade are set out. The development, understanding, and application of qualitative methods in social work are unevenly established internationally. The value of qualitative methods within social work research has often been debated, but there is evidence that they have proven useful.
Qualitative research: its value and applicability
Qualitative research has a rich tradition in the study of human social behaviour and cultures. Its general aim is to develop concepts which help us to understand social phenomena in, wherever possible, natural rather than experimental settings, to gain an understanding of the experiences, perceptions and/or behaviours of individuals, and the meanings attached to them.
Challenging perspectives: Reflexivity as a critical approach to
In qualitative research, reflexivity has become a means of understanding knowledge production. The process involves reflecting on the knowledge that researchers produce and their role in producing that knowledge (Braun and Clarke, 2013).Since qualitative social sciences challenge the dominance of realism: 'There are no objective observations, only observations situated in the worlds of the ...
Qualitative Research: Getting Started
Qualitative research methodology is not a single method, but instead offers a variety of different choices to researchers, according to specific parameters of topic, research question, participants, and settings. The method is the way you carry out your research within the paradigm of quantitative or qualitative research.
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
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. ... We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition ...
Strengths of qualitative research in social work's "policy practice"
Qualitative research can be used by social workers in daily practice to achieve these goals. Using comprehensive approaches qualitative research gives significance to politics' concepts and ...
Social Work Research Methods
Social work researchers will send out a survey, receive responses, aggregate the results, analyze the data, and form conclusions based on trends. Surveys are one of the most common research methods social workers use — and for good reason. They tend to be relatively simple and are usually affordable.
20.1 Introduction to qualitative rigor
The difference between quality in quantitative research and qualitative research extends beyond the type of data (numbers vs. words/sounds/images). If you sneak a peek all the way back to Chapter 7, we discussed the idea of different paradigms or fundamental frameworks for how we can think about the world. These frameworks value different kinds ...
17. Qualitative data and sampling
Sampling starts with deciding on the type of data you will be using. Qualitative research may use data from a variety of sources. Sources of qualitative data may come from interviews or focus groups, observations, a review of written documents, administrative data, or other forms of media, and performances.
The Central Role of Theory in Qualitative Research
This poignant historical example was used to highlight the importance of balance between the role of theory and hypothesis and starting with data. Moving from natural science to social science and qualitative research, we acknowledge and take into account advanced discussions about how theory can be generated.
Qualitative research
Social scientists often want to understand how individuals think, feel or behave in particular situations, or in relations with others that develop over time. They use in-depth interviews, participant observation and other qualitative methods to gather data. Researchers might watch a school playground to observe and record bullying behaviours, or ask young people about exactly what they ...
Research design in social work: Qualitative and quantitative methods
Based on: Campbell AnneTaylor BrianMcGlade Anne, Research design in social work: Qualitative and quantitative methods.London: Sage Publications - Learning Matters, 2017; 160 pp. ISBN 9781446271247, £20.99 (pbk)
In Pursuit of Ethical and Inclusive Research: What Ethics Committees
Across disciplines, qualitative researchers have documented epistemological and practical tensions in the ethical review of community-based and participatory research, with many arguing that ethics committees' decisions perpetuate the exclusion of marginalised communities from research engagement.
Research Productivity and Publishing Trends in Publicly Funded Social
In this study, researchers considered the research productivity of two major disciplines from social sciences: social work and psychology. The contributions by various academic disciplines vary, in which disciplines from social sciences, including social work and psychology, are minimal compared to disciplines in the pure, natural, and engineering sciences (Vakkari et al., 2022).

Social Work

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Social Work Research Methods

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Social Work Research Methods by Allen Rubin LAST REVIEWED: 28 April 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 14 December 2009 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195389678-0008

You are here

Qualitative Research in Social Work

Preview this book

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative and Quantitative

Qualitative Research

Grounded Theory

Defining Qualitative Research

Distinctions

Improved Understanding

Acknowledgements

Biographies

Contributor Information

Social Work Research Methods That Drive the Practice

Data-Driven Work

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Quantitative Research

Qualitative Research

Mixed Methods Research

The Importance of Research Design

Research Methods in Social Work

Program Evaluations

Needs Assessments

Randomized Controlled Trials

Descriptive Studies

Single-System Designs

Learn More About Social Work Research Methods

20.1 Introduction to qualitative rigor

19.1 Introduction to qualitative rigor

Truth value

Applicability

Consistency

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

10 17. Qualitative data and sampling

17.1 Ethical responsibility and cultural respectfulness

Representation

Being mindful of history

Stories as sacred: How are we requesting them?

Key Takeaways

17.2 Critical considerations

Intersectional identity

Our impact on the qualitative process

17.3 Finding the right qualitative data to answer my research question

Verbal data

Observational data

Artifacts (documents & other media)

How many kinds of data?

17.4 How to gather a qualitative sample

Nomothetic vs. idiographic

Non-probability sampling

Convenience or availability

Wait a minute, we need a plan!

Recruiting strategies

Membership-based

17.5 What should my sample look like?

Amount of data

Type of study

Diversity of perspectives

Share This Book

What is social science?

Qualitative methodologies

Semi-structured interviews

Unstructured interviews

Observation

Open questionnaire survey

Keeping logs and diaries

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS