Tutor HuntResources Sociology Resources
Qualitative Research And Methods
Academic Assignment
Date : 11/10/2016
Author Information
Uploaded by : Gergana
Uploaded on : 11/10/2016
Subject : Sociology
Qualitative
Research and MethodsIntroduction
The
dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research and the methods they
utilise has been one of the ongoing points of contention in Social Studies (De
Lisle, 2011).There is hardly any field which has not been marked by the debate,
including softer fields such as the feminism and Gender Studies fields, and
Political Science. In Social Sciences it has been traditionally understood that
quantitative research relates to a more masculine, positivist and clearly
empirical approach, while qualitative research is used primarily for more
feminine oriented studies (Oakley, 1997 1998). In the late 1980s and early
1990s this led to a predominant assumption that quantitative research is not
suitable for the needs of the softer fields, because it does not capture the
full array of nuances and abstract, difficult to pin down concepts,
characteristic for such disciplines (Graham, 1983 De Lisle, 2011). One reason
is that qualitative research focuses on the values, processes, and meanings of
the subject researched, with the contexts and descri ption (Bryman, 2012). This
division however simplifies the complexity of the research topics with which
Social Studies usually deal with. In any field, the choice of research methods
in the study depends on the scale and type of the research question, and the
aims and objectives of the study, rather than a previously adopted paradigm
(Kelly et al, 1994). This essay will attempt to show why this is the case, and
why the choice of methods needs to be determined by the research question, and
the social and research environment in which it exists. The essay will argue
that the methods need to be adjusted to the research question, and not the
other way round choosing research questions to fit previously existing
research designs. In order to do this the author will first provide a brief
overview of two of the key methods, used by researchers for qualitative
research __ interviews and observation, and will then discuss in which
situations it would be suitable to use mixed qualitative methods and why. The
benefits of qualitative oriented mixed research strategies will also be
discussed. Interviews and qualitative researchInterviews
have become one of the most common methods for conducting research in the
Social Sciences, and they are suited to a large array of research designs.
Interviews are preferred because of their versatility, and their ability to
cover aspects of the research which other research might not be able to cover
(Bryman, 2012 Sarantakos, 2005). Interviews can be structured,
semi-structured, or open (Kvale, 2007). Naturally, the most recognised
disadvantage of interviews is that they can be time-consuming, difficult to
record/transcribe, and the data collected from them can be challenging to
analyse (Kvale, 2007). The latter has been partially tackled with the rise of
CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software) (Mangabeira et
al, 2004). Another criticism of interviews is that the approach is too soft
and abstract, as well as exploratory and unscientific, compared to some
quantitative methods such as questionnaire surveys (Bryman, 2012). With
interviews it is important to think about reflexivity the role that the researcher
plays in conducting the interviews, and how they are implemented in the
particular research design (Letherby, 2003). Interviews allow the researcher to
follow the complexity of social processes which are often constructed, rather
than previously determined, and to evaluate, and reflect upon these processes. Interviews
however are not a universal method and careful consideration of the type and
scale of the research question is important. Interviews in social research we
usually use when the topic is complex, and to some extent __ abstract (Kvale,
2007). Studies
where the chosen method would be interview can be topics related to the choice
of people not to have children, the choice of changing a religion, the impacts
of political totalitarian political regimes (communism) on people s political
beliefs, or the impact of war on people. For example, the process of choosing
not to have children might be the result of a number of social, political or
economic considerations, which cannot be captured within the rigid format of
the questionnaire. The decision to choose one s religion for example can be the
result of significant personal development processes, or key events and the
ways in which they were perceived by the participants. And in the complex and
challenging study of war, the impact can be psychological, sociological, and
like many of the phenomena observed in qualitative research - constructed and
flexible, rather than fixed in space and time, and can vary greatly because of
the over-reaching impact of war. Needless
to say, these are sensitive, abstract topics, and can be studied in many
different ways, which a questionnaire survey will not be able to capture.
Another important consideration is the fact that the participants are probably
more likely to share their experiences on such issues with an interviewer, in a
more personal, relaxed atmosphere, rather than if completing a questionnaire. Of
course, these are just general examples which the researcher has used to
illustrate the point that certain topics might benefit from the use of
interviews, although interviews are often used in conjunction with other
methods. One of them is observation, especially in the context of some research
designs such as ethnography.Observation and qualitative
research As
a method observation involves the researcher immersing in the world,
phenomenon, or a group, with the purpose of gaining deeper understanding of
what is being studied (Spradley, 1980). It usually is utilised by the ethnographic
research design, although other designs can make use of it too. It is one of
the methods in qualitative research which results in reliance on directly
witnessing the processes and those involved in them, despite criticisms related
to a lack of organisation, and subjectivity (Spradley, 1980). However unlike
other methods, observation and participant observation provide an opportunity
to observe not only the people or processes, but also the environment in which
these take place. The observer needs to make good note of the following
profiles of the patricians, any trends and patterns, frequency in their
communication or behaviour also need to be studied, as well as specifics of the
inter-personal processes taking place power dynamics, relationships that form
or have formed prior to the research, internal divisions, etc (Spradley, 1980). Also, unlike other
methods observation can capture non-verbal communication, such as facial
expressions, body language, or small traces which participants leave behind,
which might bring valuable information to the researcher (Spradley, 1980). But
for which sort of questions do we use observation and would that bring valid
results? Usually, the studies which would benefit from observation or
participant observation fall in the ethnographic research design. Such studies
are also usually related to social situations Spradley (1980), which need to
be carefully selected and may relate to examination of a variety of processes,
such as religious, occupational, or those taking place within sub-cultural
groups, or a particular community of which the researcher may, or may not be a member
(gay, lesbian, prisoners, political activists). The topics which usually rely
on observation may fall in the field of anthropology, particularly cultural anthropology,
social psychology, and ethnology. Observation
is often used in combination with
other methods, such as interviews, reflexive journals, or focus groups (Spradley,
1985). The benefits of combining qualitative methods within a research design will
be discussed next. Combining methods in qualitative
researchFor
the purpose of this paper it is important to first define what is meant here by
mixed methods or combination of methods. Johnson et al. (2007) define
qualitative-dominant mixed methods research as the type of mixed research in
which one relies on a qualitative, constructivist-poststructuralist-critical
view of the research process, while concurrently recognizing that the addition
of quantitative data and approaches are likely to benefit most research
projects (Johnson et al, 2007: 143). So it would be useful to note that mixed
methods is not always referred to the combination of quantitative and
qualitative methods, but also to a variety of methods in say, one of the two. As
suggested by Mason (2006:10), a qualitative driven approach to mixing methods
offers the potential for understanding complex social situations and
experiences, benefitting from the ways in which researchers have created
constructivist epistemologies, and to address questions which are entirely open
to interpretation and explanation. In order to defend the use of qualitatively
oriented research methodology, De Lisle (2011) refers to a research study in
Trinidad and Tobago. It aimed to examine the challenges to attending secondary
school in the country. The researchers embedded qualitative dominant mixed
methods design, which enhanced the ability to capture contradictions,
paradoxes, and different aspects of the local educational system, and its
receivers the children and their families (De Lisle, 2011). The mixture of
qualitative research methods included ethnographic field notes, and individual
and focus group interviews, which were both structured and unstructured, as
well as visual ethnography observations of classrooms (De Lisle, 2011). The
methods for this study, despite possible criticism that none of them could
exist as a method on its own, were deigned to capture the realities of
children s lives, which could be a potential obstacle to their regular
attendance, and the resources available at the local schools another possible
obstacle. This example illustrates the wide flexibility of qualitative research
methods, in a study where the collection of quantitative data via a questionnaire
survey would not bring the desired results. The reason is that the problems in
education, which Trinidad and Tobago was facing at the time, could hardly be
quantified or captured within the strict format of a questionnaire. They were
related not only to tangible variables such as income, access to a nearby
school, etc, but also to culture, family upbringing, social environment and
security, and the even more constructivist concept of perception of education -
the way education is perceived by children and their families. In this sense
the choice of mixed methods qualitative research design was largely determined
by the scale, purpose, and topic of the subject. Despite the fact that Trinidad
and Tobago was removed from the list of
developing countries in 2011 by OECD (Guardian, 2011), issues of poverty, gang
crime, police violence, corruption and drug trafficking are still predominant,
affecting society and public institutions at large, education not being an
exception. Thus researching any social,
political or economic issues in such countries and regions is one good example
of why qualitative oriented methodologies are far more applicable. If we study
education choices and factors affecting school attendance in a country like Switzerland
for example, perhaps the use of a questionnaire survey only would be helpful,
as half of the factors which will have to be taken into consideration, compared
to the case of Trinidad and Tobago, would be inapplicable, simply because
Switzerland does not suffer poverty, gang crime, or drug smuggling, which might
affect the choice of school or attendance in a country like Trinidad and Tobago.
Of course, it would be an oversimplification to say that any issue in the field
of education can be studied with the choice of one method or the other only,
having in mind that education is one of the most challenging and complex
research fields, where a mixture of methods is often recommended (De Lisle,
2011). What the author has attempted to show by drawing the parallel between
Trinidad and Tobago, and Switzerland is that the choice of methods depends
largely on the research topic, the field of research, the scope of the study,
and the location (if applicable), and the scope of the study.One
of the research designs which relies on the combination of interviews and observation
is ethnography (Spradely, 1980 Atkinson, 1990). The combination of methods is
usually used to achieve richness and variety of data (Spradely, 1980 Atkinson, 1990).
The
combination of methods for data collection is a favoured approach in many cases,
although its feasibility and implementation would depend on the research
question. In general, there are topics and questions which can be addressed
with only a single research method/technique. Some examples are questions like:
Women s perceptions on the quality and effects of liquid lipsticks , or How
do Eastern Europeans in London assess the healthcare system in the UK . These
are fictional examples devised to illustrate that some research questions might
be addressed with a well-designed questionnaire, unlike others, where the
combination of methods is a must. Ethnographic
studies, for example, use a variety of techniques, often because the questions
asked there are multi-layered, e.g. observation on the attitude of London
based English people towards Muslims in London or observation on the key
causes of gang crime in East London , where the research design is more
complicated, because the aims and the objectives of the study are far-reaching.
Also, usually in the study of a group or a community, which is often the case
with ethnography (Atkinson, 1990), the perceptions and the dynamics of the
group are intangible, and versatile, therefore hard to quantify or measure
with a questionnaire, observation, or an interview only. This is the reason why
in those cases there is a combination of methods __ usually observation, as
well as individual or focus group interviews with the group members. Such
questions also predispose towards a multi-layered research design, not only
because usually they have longer duration, but also because the analysis is
cross-disciplinary, transcending the boundaries of a single field. In
such cases combination of methods within the qualitative research design is
recommended, not only because combined methods bring richer data, but also
because of issues of internal and external validity. Internal validity usually
relates to coherence between existing theory and the findings of the study, and
external validity usually relates to generalisability, or whether the results can
be replicated (Bryman, 2012 Sarantakos, 2005). A second method in such studies is usually
needed, as a supplementary, to make sure that all residuals of data are
captured, but also, to make sure that the work is properly validated. In this
sense a combination of qualitative methods for multi-layered research questions
can largely contribute to internal/external validity, because the second method
(say, the interview), may allow not only for the collection of residual data,
but also for the testing of the results collected through the primary method
(say, the observation). This is usually the case with the so called embedded
designs (Creswell and Clark, 2007), where the dominant design is followed by
sequential approaches. In this sense the observation, being the primary method,
will be used to make contributions to the major aims and objectives of the
study, and it may be followed up by interviews with some of the participants, from
the group/community observed. In
order to understand the benefits of combining qualitative methods in a given
research design, and the fact that the methods largely depend on the research
question, let us try to implement the above mentioned design to some of the
earlier examples. If we are to study, for example, the attitudes of London-based
English people towards Muslims in London, we might want to use the ethnographic
research design, with a mix of qualitative data collection tools. The primary
tool could be observation, and the secondary tool could be interviews
(semi-structured), with some of the members of the community in question, in
our case English people based in London. While the primary method will be the
focused observations in area (s) populated by English and Muslim people in
London, interviews will be conducted at a later stage, when the observation has
been completed, in order to get a closer look at some of the members of the
community, and to fill in any gaps left by the primary observations. In
addition, the interviews might confirm any relationships between existing
assumptions/theory, and the specifics of the findings of the research, thus
contributing to the internal validity of the study. Many researchers in this
case would opt for an additional questionnaire, in order to measure the frequency
of repetition of some acts within the community observed, or the presence of a
second observer, to make sure that their observations are accurate. The
presence of a second observer in such studies is a common practice, because it
is said to potentially reduce the level of bias and subjectivity (Spradely, 1980),
as different observers might interpret different acts or behaviours
differently. However qualitative studies, because of the usually unique social
environments that they observe, and the processes which usually spread across
the study of more than one discipline, remain largely subjective, despite the
attempt of social researchers to combine a variety of methods within the chosen
research designs. Naturally,
we must briefly acknowledge that mixing research methods often has some
disadvantages, such as the fact that on many occasions there is no clear
recipe for mixing the research methods, which can lead to problems of
integration and the study dividing into two separate studies (Yin, 2006). Also,
and this is in most cases, one method is always supplementary compared to the
other. Critics would probably say that the mixture of the methods does not then
guarantee validation, but simply a diversification of data. Even if this is the
case, the mixture of qualitative methods within a given design predisposes
towards the examination of issues which are multi-faceted, and which cannot be
addressed through the implementation of one method only. Conclusion This
essay has attempted to briefly illustrate the benefits of mixing methods in
qualitative research. It has been shown that often researchers in the Social
Sciences prefer to mix qualitative methods in a given research design
(ethnography was discussed as one example), to achieve a better understanding
of the phenomenon, group, or the environment they are studying. Despite some
obvious disadvantages, it has been shown that the choice of methods depends
largely on the research question, its scope, purposes, and scale. In cases
where the question relates to a process, which takes place over a long period
of time, and is the result of a variety of social, economic, and political
factors, the combination of observation and interviews becomes necessary. In
other cases, where the question relates to a short-term problem, phenomena, or
process, but it still has some relatively abstract aspects, the researcher may
wish to choose only one method on its own. Finally, it can be said that because
of the variety of complex issues which became the subject of Social Science
since the 1980s, the growing popularity of the qualitative methods is a natural
development and one that has been perceived as the norm among researchers. It
is no longer a question of warring paradigms which research design is to be
chosen for a particular study, because issues related to observation and
evaluation, rather than simply measuring and quantification, came within the
reach of researchers in the realms of a constantly changing, and globalised
world.References Atkinson, P. (1990) The
Ethnographic Imagination London: Routledge Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University PressCreswell, J. And Clark, L.P (2007) Designing
and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, London: Sage De Lisle, J. (2011) THE BENEFITS AND
CHALLENGES OF MIXING METHODS AND METHODOLOGIES: Lessons Learnt From
Implementing Qualitatively Led Mixed Methods Research Designs in Trinidad and
Tobago, Caribbean Curriculum Vol. 18,
2011, 87 .Graham, H. (1983). Do her answers fit his
questions? Women and the survey method. In Eva Gamarnikow David Morgan Jane
Purvis & Daphne Taylorson (Eds.), The
Public and the private (pp.132-147).
London: Heinemann. Guardian (2011) T&T now
considered a developed country , November 4,
Available at: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/11/03/tt-now-considered-developed-country, Accessed 05 August, 2016 Johnson, R.
B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(2), 112 .Kelly, L.,
Burton, S.and Regan, L 1994 Researching Women s Lives or Studying Women s
Oppression? Reflections on What Constitutes Feminist Research . In M. Maynard
and J. Purvis (eds.), Researching Women s
Lives from a Feminist Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis, 35-6Kvale, S.
(2007) Doing Interviews, London: SageLetherby, G. (2003) Feminist Research in Theory and
Practice. Buckingham: Open UniversityMangabeira,
C. Lee, R. M. & Fielding, N. G. (2004). Computers and qualitative
research: Adoption, use and representation. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 167-178.Mason, J. (2006).
Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9 .Oakley, A. (1997). The
gendering of methodology: An experiment in knowing. Seminar to Swedish
Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 10th
April.Oakley, A. (1998). Science, gender, and women`s liberation:
An argument against postmodernism. Women`s
Studies International Forum, 21(2), 133-146. Sarantakos, S. (2005) Social Research, Palgrave MacmillanSpencer, L. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Dillon, L. (2003) Assessing
Quality in Qualitative Evaluation. London: The Cabinet Office.Spradley, J. P. (1980) Participant Observation
Orlando: FL Harcourt, Brace JovanovichYin,
R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or
merely parallel. Research in the Schools,
13(1), 41 . lt;/o:p>
This resource was uploaded by: Gergana