Data from direct fieldwork observations, in-depth, open-ended interviews, and written documents are analyzed in qualitative research. A naturalistic inquiry is used by qualitative researchers, who analyze real-world environments inductively to produce rich narrative accounts and case studies. Patterns and trends emerge from inductive interpretation through events, the product of qualitative study.
For collecting information, qualitative researchers usually use four methods: (a) engaging in the environment, (b) observing directly, (c) conducting in-depth interviews, and (d) examining documents and material culture. The staples of the diet are at the heart of their investigation. They are accompanied by some secondary and advanced data collection methods.
Rather than concentrating on patient characteristics or the content of consultations, qualitative approaches may help us access “embedded” systems by focusing on the context of people’s daily lives where certain decisions are taken and implemented. Qualitative methods may assist in the comprehension of seemingly illogical actions. Hilary Graham’s (1993) research on economically deprived lone mothers and their smoking habits is one of the most well-known in this group. Given the high cost of tobacco, both financially and in terms of health, smoking by women in this situation may be considered contrary to medical advice. Graham’s report, on the other hand, highlighted the benefits of smoking for women in terms of helping them to handle the demands of their circumstances and obligations. Smoking helped the women to claim their adult status in the face of pervasive childbearing demands, without forcing them to participate in this alternative practice for long periods or leave their homes or children in their care. It was also a social activity that they could do with their mates in the safety of their own homes. Smoking was also comparatively inexpensive compared to other behaviors that would have conferred these same benefits, and nicotine is a strong appetite suppressant, allowing the women to restrict their food consumption while having the maximum amount of food for their children.
Qualitative analysis is particularly well-suited to background research. It’s also great for illuminating processes, whether it’s a systemic change or individual decision-making since it helps us to see how changes impact everyday practices and interactions. Qualitative approaches can explain obvious differences, such as the low rate of formal reporting of racial incidents in one part of Scotland, which contradicted police officers’ experience “on the beat” and awareness of the areas involved. A questionnaire analysis, one-on-one interviews, and focus groups were conducted by Glasgow University colleagues with a variety of people living and working in the communities in question. We were able to ‘problematize’ both the definition of prejudice and the practice of reporting using qualitative approaches, stepping back some steps from our own and the police’s understandings and looking at how people make sense of these concepts regularly. Focus groups, in particular, revealed that ‘racism’ is a complicated problem, and that defining events as racist is difficult, as it is based on a variety of factors and attributions, such as perceptions of police and legal systems, and the degree to which reactions are premeditated or intended to offend (Barbour, 2007).
Qualitative research can help to ‘de-mystify chronic illness by offering comprehensive accounts of patients’ experiences, and there is a large body of such research on the subject. Ethnographers, in particular, often consider their work to be “thick definition” (Geertz, 1973: 5). Qualitative research, on the other hand, can and does offer explanations – but in a different way and with a different emphasis than quantitative research.
The systematic noting and recording of events, behaviors, and artifacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study are known as observation. Field notes—detailed, nonjudgmental, concrete accounts of what has been observed—are a common term for the observational record. For studies that rely solely on observation, the researcher makes no special effort to play a specific role in the environment; simply being accepted as an unobtrusive observer is appropriate. Classroom studies are a common form of observation in education. This approach assumes the action is voluntary and reflects underlying values and beliefs. Observation can take many forms, from a highly organized, comprehensive notation of actions using checklists to a more holistic explanation of events and behavior.
The researcher usually joins the setting with wide areas of interest but no fixed categories or strict observational checklists in the early stages of qualitative inquiry. The researcher would be able to recognize repeated patterns of actions and relationships in this manner. Checklists become more relevant and context-sensitive after these trends are established and explained by the early analysis of field notes. Later in the analysis, oriented observation is used to see whether analytic themes can explain actions and relationships over a long period or in a variety of settings. In all qualitative analysis, observation is a central and critical process. It’s used to find out how dynamic interactions happen in real-life social situations. Also in studies that use in-depth interviews, observation is crucial because the interviewer takes note of the interviewee’s body language and affect in addition to her speech. It is, however, a technique that necessitates a significant amount of the researcher’s time. If a researcher is simply watching from a distance or assuming a participant-observer position in the environment, some situations can be dangerous. Working with the police (as Manning did, as mentioned in Chapter 3), drug users, cults, and circumstances in which political or social tensions could escalate into violence are all examples of street ethnography (Weppner, 1977). The researcher should explain the aim of the observation, the period of the analysis during which it is most likely to be successful, and the use of field notes to respond to the research questions in the proposal stage.
Participant observation is both an overall approach to inquiry and a data-gathering method, with roots in cultural anthropology and qualitative sociology. It is a necessary component of all qualitative studies to some extent. Participant observation, as the name implies, necessitates firsthand participation in the social world under investigation. The researcher spends a significant amount of time in the environment, observing everyday life. This immersion helps the researcher to learn firsthand about his own experiences. This method of data collection is fundamental to all qualitative studies, and it allows the researcher to understand her positionality as a participant-observer. It’s useful to expand on the expected level of participation at the proposal stage: what that involvement would likely be like, how much knowledge about the study’s intent will be revealed to those in the environment, how intensively the researcher will be present, how centered the participation will be, and how ethical dilemmas will be treated. The researcher should specify how his involvement would contribute to the answers to the research questions.
In-depth qualitative interviews are more like conversations than structured activities with predetermined answer categories. The researcher looks at a few broad topics to learn more about the participant’s viewpoints but otherwise respects how the participant frames and constructs his or her responses. In reality, this approach is based on a qualitative research assumption: the participant’s perspective on the phenomenon of interest should unfold as the participant sees it. The most crucial feature of the interviewer’s strategy is to express the belief that the participant’s opinions are relevant and useful.
Interviews have several advantages. An interview produces a large amount of data quickly. The process takes in a broader range of knowledge when more than one individual participates than when there are fewer participants—the well-known trade-off between breadth and scope. It is possible to obtain prompt follow-up and clarification. Interviews, when combined with observation, help the researcher to obtain a deeper understanding of the implications that daily events have for people.
Interviewing, on the other hand, has its weaknesses and shortcomings. Personal contact is required during interviews, and cooperation is necessary. Interviewees may be reluctant or uncomfortable revealing what the interrogator wants to know, or they may be completely unaware of repeated trends in their lives. Because of a lack of experience or familiarity with the local language, or because of a lack of ability, the interviewer does not ask questions that elicit long narratives from participants. Similarly, she could not completely comprehend answers to the questions or other aspects of the conversation. And interviewees can have a good reason not to tell the truth at times (see Douglas, 1976).
Interviewers should be skilled at personal contact, question framing, and gentle questioning for elaboration, as well as excellent listeners. When in-depth interviews are the only method of data collection, the researcher should have shown through the conceptual context that the analysis aims to reveal and explain the participants’ perspectives on events—that is, that the subjective viewpoint is what matters. Finally, there is the question of data consistency. Interview data will be triangulated with data obtained from other approaches in studies based on more objectivist assumptions.
The technique of interviewing focus group participants is originally derived from marketing research, but it has been widely expanded to include social science and applied research. The groups are normally made up of 7 to 10 people who have never met before and were chosen because they share similar attributes that are important to the study’s questions. The interviewer creates a welcoming atmosphere by asking focused questions that promote dialogue and the expression of contrasting viewpoints. These interviews can be repeated with various people many times so that the researcher can spot patterns in the attitudes and opinions expressed, which can be discovered by a thorough, systematic study (Krueger, 1988).
This approach suggests that people’s behaviors and opinions aren’t developed in a vacuum and that they sometimes need to listen to others’ viewpoints and understandings before they can form their own. Since the individual has not focused on the subject and feels unprepared to respond, one-on-one interviews could be improved. In a focus group, the questions are deceptively simple; the trick is to allow participants to share their opinions by establishing a friendly atmosphere.
Focus-group interviews have the advantage of being socially focused, enabling researchers to study participants in an environment that is more realistic than artificial laboratory environments and more comfortable than a one-on-one interview. Focus groups, when used in combination with participant observation, are particularly useful for obtaining entry, concentrating site selection and sampling, and even double-checking preliminary conclusions (Morgan,1997). The format offers the facilitator the opportunity to dive into unforeseen subjects when they emerge during the discussion. The results have a high degree of “face validity,” which means they seem reliable because the approach is easy to understand. Furthermore, focus groups are inexpensive, yield fast results, and can expand the sample size of qualitative research by enabling more participants to be interviewed at once (Krueger, 1988). Focus groups are particularly useful in action analysis and program design and evaluation. They were useful tools, for example, in collecting data to develop a program to work on HIV/AIDS-related job concerns, based on their responses to questions about specific needs ranging from stress and health-care access to family, faith, and future expectations (O’Neill, Small, & Strachan, 1999).
However, there are several drawbacks to this approach as well. The topic of power dynamics in focus groups is first and foremost. If the researcher uses this approach, she must be acutely aware of power dynamics and capable of effectively facilitating; these are vital skills. Furthermore, a group interview gives the interviewer less influence than an individual interview.
In anthropology, films and photography have a long history. This tradition, also known as visual anthropology or film ethnography, is focused on visual depictions of a group’s everyday life. Films are permanent artifacts that function as archives of natural events. Photographic techniques can be used to gather data as well as organize, analyze, and validate qualitative research (Szto, Furman, & Langer,2005). In his quest for a cultural understanding of the interconnections between economics and custom in handicrafts, dowries, and trousseaux, he used films of marriage ceremonies in different social strata in contemporary India, as well as historical images and records. The movie has the rare ability to capture observable events objectively—yet, as with other types of observation, often from the viewpoint of the filmmaker. The photographer, as the observer, must first determine whether to document and then how to view the data captured. Documentation of the time, location, and subject of the shooting, as well as the photographer’s purpose and interests, is needed for research film methodology. All-natural events contain a wealth of visual information: It would be futile to attempt a full record of even a minor incident.
In films, there are three types of sampling: chance, programmed, and digressive (Sorenson, 1968). When unanticipated or poorly understood events occur, opportunity sampling tracks them. Filming according to a predetermined schedule means determining ahead of time what, where, and when to film. Programmed sampling, which is based on the conceptual context of the study proposal, specifies which events are likely to be relevant. Unlike opportunity sampling, it is driven by the study design rather than intuition.
Digressive sampling is the deliberate hunt for the unusual, for locations and incidents that are not well-known to the general public.
Researchers chose ethnographic film because of its obvious advantages. Any record’s importance is improved by visual samples. The movie captures life’s highs and lows, transmits cultural developments to future generations, and chronicles social struggles. Since they include politics and other aspects of cultural prejudice, the film researcher is restricted by what the imagination can picture, and the camera can document significant limitations. However, occurrences may be registered in their natural environment.
The film is particularly useful for both discovery and validation. It tracks nonverbal communication and actions, such as facial expressions, movements, and emotions. The film captures movement and transition in their natural state. It can be used in the future to benefit from new ways of seeing, analyzing, and comprehending change processes. When the essence of what is sought is understood but the elements of it cannot be discovered due to the limitations of the human eye, the film can help. It allows data from nonrecurring, fading, or unusual incidents to be preserved and studied. Another researcher or participants will verify your interpretation of data. The researcher will get feedback on the interpretation’s accuracy, and the film can be re-shot to make it more authentic. Educating Peter (Home Box Office Project Awareness, 1992), a story about a boy with serious cognitive disabilities in a normal classroom, and High School, a depiction of life in a comprehensive high school, are two excellent examples of ethnographic film.
There are some shortcomings and drawbacks to film. Film-making is costly, and most research budgets are limited. Production can be difficult. The researcher needs technical knowledge. Filming can also be very invasive, causing changes in environments and activities. Films are not allowed to be used in books, articles, or dissertations. Finally, the ethics of ethnographic film-making must be carefully considered.
This approach was popular among anthropologists studying other cultures, but it has also become popular in sociology, allowing researchers to observe how to work and social activities are carried out daily. It enables researchers to examine actions in a naturalistic environment, similar to the common “fly on the wall” format used in television documentaries, where the researcher’s control is minimal and discrepancies between how people interpret and present their participation and what they do in practice can be uncovered. As a result, it may reveal inconsistencies between goal and outcome. This is the mainstay of ethnography, which does sometimes use other approaches in addition to qualitative fieldwork, such as record analysis, interviews, and focus group discussions.
Besides, there is a wide body of qualitative research that uses preexisting materials as data sources. Biographers and social historians have long used diaries, letters, and archival material in their work, capitalizing on the properties of such artifacts to examine topics that were not current at the time of their development. Documents may also provide insight into how they came to be, helping researchers to recreate policy decisions, for example. Individuals and communities use records throughout their daily lives and in their social and professional positions.
Documents may also be produced for analysis. One of the most popular methods of gathering such information is to ask study participants to hold diaries. In the sense of participatory studies, diaries can be very useful. Although diaries are unlikely to be used as a stand-alone tool, they can be useful in mixed methods studies that aim to combine different qualitative methods or combine quantitative and qualitative data collection methods.
7. ONLINE RESEARCH
As new technologies emerge and new possibilities emerge, this list of potential data sources will continue to grow. For others, the internet has provided a ready-made database, and an increasing number of researchers are harvesting information from online chat rooms and discussion groups and using it as a basis for qualitative analysis of the resulting text. The internet also offers a new medium for data collection, with researchers conducting interviews via email or Skype, moderating online discussion boards, or even eliciting feedback via project-specific Facebook pages or Twitter.
To learn about the distribution of traits, behaviors, or values, researchers administer questionnaires to certain samples of a population. Researchers make one important assumption when they decide to survey a group of people: that a trait or opinion can be accurately represented or calculated by self-reporting. Researchers depend entirely on the fairness and precision of participants’ answers while using questionnaires. While this limits the utility of questionnaires for probing deeply held beliefs and principles, there are still many situations in which surveying can be beneficial. Questionnaires usually contain multiple questions with standardized answer categories, as well as some open-ended questions. The questions are scrutinized for bias, sequence, consistency, and face-validity (sometimes very rigorously). Small samples are commonly used to test questionnaires to see if they are effective and, possibly, reliable.
Data is obtained in a standardized format in sample surveys, typically from a probability sample of the population. If a researcher needs to gather a small amount of data from a large number of people, a survey is the best choice. For drawing inferences about a large group of people based on data taken from a relatively small number of individuals in that group, survey research is the acceptable mode of inquiry. Its primary goal is to statistically characterize and clarify the heterogeneity of such characteristics in a population.Mail, telephone, and informal interview are the three tools used to perform surveys. In a survey study, however, every form of data collection, from observation to content analysis, can and has been used.
Cross-sectional measurements were taken at a single point in time or longitudinal measurements taken at several points in time are used in the majority of survey studies. Trend studies, which analyze a population by analyzing separate samples at various points in time, cohort studies of a bounded population, and panel studies of a single sample of individuals at multiple points in time are all examples of survey research.
The relative benefits and drawbacks of survey research are weighed using the following criteria: (a) system suitability for the problem under investigation, (b) calculation precision, (c) generalization of the results, (d) administrative ease, and (e) avoidance of ethical or political problems during the research process.
When the aims of study necessitate gathering objective data on a particular issue or population, surveys have obvious advantages. They make it easier to perform research in politically or ethically controversial areas. They’re used in public health and economic growth projects. Large surveys often concentrate on critical or divisive issues in the public sphere.Surveys are useful because of their precision, generalization, and convenience. Quantification, replicability, and control over observer effects all help to increase measurement accuracy. Within established error margins, the results can be extrapolated to a wider population. Surveys are easy to administer and maintain, and they allow for quick statistical analysis.
Surveys, on the other hand, have flaws. They’re useless for studying complex social interactions or complicated inter-action patterns. Their benefits can also be drawbacks. Despite its precision, a survey cannot guarantee that the sample reflects the entire universe without further proof. Also, while surveys are easy, they are typically a costly form of data collection. Finally, surveys can violate a respondent’s privacy or have unfavorable consequences for the respondent or the group.