Qualitative research

Qualitative research is a method of inquiry appropriated in many different academic

disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market and further contexts.
[1]
 Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human
behaviour and the reasons that govern such behaviour. The qualitative method
investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when. Hence,
smaller but focused samples are more often needed, rather than large samples.

Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any
more general conclusions are only hypotheses (informative guesses). Quantitative
methods can be used to verify which of such hypotheses are true.

Distinctions from quantitative research

First, in qualitative research, cases can be selected purposefully, according to whether or
not they typify certain characteristics or contextual locations.

Second, the researcher's role receives greater critical attention. This is because in
qualitative research the possibility of the researcher taking a 'neutral' or transcendental
position is seen as more problematic in practical and/or philosophical terms. Hence
qualitative researchers are often exhorted to reflect on their role in the research process
and make this clear in the analysis.

Third, while qualitative data analysis can take a wide variety of forms, it differs from
quantitative research in its focus on language, signs and meaning. In addition, qualitative
research approaches analysis holistically and contextually, rather than being reductionist
and isolationist. Nevertheless, systematic and transparent approaches to analysis are
almost always regarded as essential for rigor. For example, many qualitative methods
require researchers to carefully code data and discern and document themes consistently
and reliably.

Perhaps the most traditional division between the uses of qualitative and quantitative
research in the social sciences is that qualitative methods are used for exploration (i.e.,
hypothesis-generating) or for explaining puzzling quantitative results. Quantitative
methods, by contrast, are used to test hypotheses. This is because establishing content
validity - do measures measure what a researcher thinks they measure? - is seen as one
of the strengths of qualitative research. Some consider quantitative methods to provide
more representative, reliable and precise measures through focused hypotheses,
measurement tools and applied mathematics. By contrast, qualitative data is usually
difficult to graph or display in mathematical terms.
Qualitative research is often used for policy and program evaluation research since it can
answer certain important questions more efficiently and effectively than quantitative
approaches. This is particularly the case for understanding how and why
certain outcomes were achieved (not just what was achieved) but also for answering
important questions about relevance, unintended and impact of programs such as: Were
expectations reasonable? Did processes operate as expected? Were key players able to
carry out their duties? Did the program cause any unintended effects?

Qualitative approaches have the advantage of allowing for more diversity in responses as
well as the capacity to adapt to new developments or issues during the research process
itself. While qualitative research can be expensive and time-consuming to conduct, many
fields of research employ qualitative techniques that have been specifically developed to
provide more succinct, cost-efficient and timely results. Rapid Rural Appraisal is one
formalised example of these adaptations but there are many others.

Data Collection
Qualitative researchers may use different approaches in collecting data, such as
the grounded theory practice, narratology, storytelling, classical ethnography,
or shadowing. Qualitative methods are also loosely present in other methodological
approaches, such as action research or actor-network theory. Forms of the data collected
can include interviews and group discussions, observation and reflection field notes,
various texts, pictures, and other materials.

Qualitative research often categorizes data into patterns as the primary basis for
organizing and reporting results.[citation needed]
 Qualitative researchers typically rely on the
following methods for gathering information: Participant Observation, Non-participant
Observation, Field Notes, Reflexive Journals, Structured Interview, Semi-structured
Interview, Unstructured Interview, and Analysis of documents and materials [4].

The ways of participating and observing can vary widely from setting to setting.
Participant observation is a strategy of reflexive learning, not a single method of
observing[5]. In participant observation [1] researchers typically become members of a
culture, group, or setting, and adopt roles to conform to that setting. In doing so, the aim is
for the researcher to gain a closer insight into the culture's practices, motivations and
emotions. It is argued that the researchers' ability to understand the experiences of the
culture may be inhibited if they observe without participating[citation needed].

Some distinctive qualitative methods are the use of focus groups and key informant
interviews. The focus group technique involves a moderator facilitating a small group
discussion between selected individuals on a particular topic. This is a particularly popular
method in market research and testing new initiatives with users/workers.
One traditional and specialized form of qualitative research is called cognitive testing
or pilot testing which is used in the development of quantitative survey items. Survey
items are piloted on study participants to test the reliability and validity of the items.

Examples
(In simplified terms - Qualitative means a non-numerical data collection or explanation
based on the attributes of the graph or source of data. For example, if you are asked to
explain in qualitative terms a thermal image displayed in multiple colours, then you would
explain the colour differences rather than the heat's numerical value.)

Data analysis
Interpretive techniques

The most common analysis of qualitative data is observer impression. That is, expert or
bystander observers examine the data, interpret it via forming an impression and report
their impression in a structured and sometimes quantitative form.
Coding

Coding is an interpretive technique that both organizes the data and provides a means to
introduce the interpretations of it into certain quantitative methods. Most coding requires
the analyst to read the data and demarcate segments within it. Each segment is labelled
with a “code” – usually a word or short phrase that suggests how the associated data
segments inform the research objectives. When coding is complete, the analyst prepares
reports via a mix of: summarizing the prevalence of codes, discussing similarities and
differences in related codes across distinct original sources/contexts, or comparing the
relationship between one or more codes.

Some qualitative data that is highly structured (e.g., open-end responses from surveys or
tightly defined interview questions) is typically coded without additional segmenting of the
content. In these cases, codes are often applied as a layer on top of the data. Quantitative
analysis of these codes is typically the capstone analytical step for this type of qualitative
data.

Contemporary qualitative data analyses are sometimes supported by computer programs.

These programs do not supplant the interpretive nature of coding but rather are aimed at
enhancing the analyst’s efficiency at data storage/retrieval and at applying the codes to
the data. Many programs offer efficiencies in editing and revising coding, which allow for
work sharing, peer review, and recursive examination of data.

A frequent criticism of coding method is that it seeks to transform qualitative data into
quantitative data, thereby draining the data of its variety, richness, and individual
character. Analysts respond to this criticism by thoroughly expositing their definitions of
codes and linking those codes soundly to the underlying data, therein bringing back some
of the richness that might be absent from a mere list of codes.
Recursive abstraction

Some qualitative datasets are analyzed without coding. A common method here is
recursive abstraction, where datasets are summarized, those summaries are then further
summarized, and so on. The end result is a more compact summary that would have
been difficult to accurately discern without the preceding steps of distillation.

A frequent criticism of recursive abstraction is that the final conclusions are several times
removed from the underlying data. While it is true that poor initial summaries will certainly
yield an inaccurate final report, qualitative analysts can respond to this criticism. They do
so, like those using coding method, by documenting the reasoning behind each summary
step, citing examples from the data where statements were included and where
statements were excluded from the intermediate summary.
Mechanical techniques

Some techniques rely on leveraging computers to scan and sort large sets of qualitative
data. At their most basic level, mechanical techniques rely on counting words, phrases, or
coincidences of tokens within the data. Often referred to as content analysis, the output
from these techniques is amenable to many advanced statistical analyses.

Mechanical techniques are particularly well-suited for a few scenarios. One such scenario
is for datasets that are simply too large for a human to effectively analyze, or where
analysis of them would be cost prohibitive relative to the value of information they contain.
Another scenario is when the chief value of a dataset is the extent to which it contains
“red flags” (e.g., searching for reports of certain adverse events within a lengthy journal
dataset from patients in a clinical trial) or “green flags” (e.g., searching for mentions of
your brand in positive reviews of marketplace products).

A frequent criticism of mechanical techniques is the absence of a human interpreter. And

while masters of these methods are able to write sophisticated software to mimic some
human decisions, the bulk of the “analysis” is nonhuman. Analysts respond by proving the
value of their methods relative to either a) hiring and training a human team to analyze the
data or b) letting the data go untouched, leaving any actionable nuggets undiscovered.

Quantitative research
n the social sciences, quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical
investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships. The
objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical
models, theories and/or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena. The process
of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental
connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative
relationships.

Quantitative research is used widely in social sciences such

as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and political science. Research in mathematical
sciences such as physics is also 'quantitative' by definition, though this use of the term
differs in context. In the social sciences, the term relates to empirical methods, originating
in both philosophical positivism and the history of statistics, which contrast qualitative
research methods.

Qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any
more general conclusions are only hypotheses. Quantitative methods can be used to
verify, which of such hypotheses are true.

Quantitative research is generally made using scientific methods, which can include:

 The generation of models, theories and hypotheses

 The development of instruments and methods for measurement
 Experimental control and manipulation of variables
 Collection of empirical data
 Modelling and analysis of data
 Evaluation of results

In the social sciences particularly, quantitative research is often contrasted with qualitative

research which is the examination, analysis and interpretation of observations for the
purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships, including
classifications of types of phenomena and entities, in a manner that does not involve
mathematical models. Approaches to quantitative psychology were first modelled on
quantitative approaches in the physical sciences by Gustav Fechner in his work
on psychophysics, which built on the work of Ernst Heinrich Weber. Although a distinction
is commonly drawn between qualitative and quantitative aspects of scientific investigation,
it has been argued that the two go hand in hand. For example, based on analysis of the
history of science, Kuhn (1961, p. 162) concludes that “large amounts of qualitative work
have usually been prerequisite to fruitful quantification in the physical sciences” [2].
Qualitative research is often used to gain a general sense of phenomena and to form
theories that can be tested using further quantitative research. For instance, in the social
sciences qualitative research methods are often used to gain better understanding of
such things as intentionality (from the speech response of the researchee) and meaning
(why did this person/group say something and what did it mean to them?)(Kieron
Yeoman).

Although quantitative investigation of the world has existed since people first began to
record events or objects that had been counted, the modern idea of quantitative
processes have their roots in Auguste Comte's positivist framework.

Quantitative methods
Quantitative methods are research techniques that are used to gather quantitative data -
information dealing with numbers and anything that is measurable. Statistics, tables and
graphs, are often used to present the results of these methods. They are therefore to be
distinguished from qualitative methods.

In most physical and biological sciences, the use of either quantitative or qualitative

methods is uncontroversial, and each is used when appropriate. In the social sciences,
particularly in sociology, social anthropology and psychology, the use of one or other type
of method has become a matter of controversy and even ideology, with particular schools
of thought within each discipline favouring one type of method and pouring scorn on to the
other. Advocates of quantitative methods argue that only by using such methods can the
social sciences become truly scientific; advocates of qualitative methods argue that
quantitative methods tend to obscure the reality of the social phenomena under study
because they underestimate or neglect the non-measurable factors, which may be the
most important. The modern tendency (and in reality the majority tendency throughout the
history of social science) is to use eclectic approaches. Quantitative methods might be
used with a global qualitative frame. Qualitative methods might be used to understand the
meaning of the numbers produced by quantitative methods. Using quantitative methods, it
is possible to give precise and testable expression to qualitative ideas. This combination
of quantitative and qualitative data gathering is often referred to as mixed-methods
research.

Examples

 Research that consists of the percentage amounts of all the elements that make
up Earth's atmosphere.
 Survey that concludes that the average patient has to wait two hours in the waiting
room of a certain doctor before being selected.
 An experiment in which group x was given two tablets of Aspirin a day and Group
y was given two tablets of a placebo a day where each participant is randomly assigned
to one or other of the groups. The numerical factors such as two tablets, percent of
elements and the time of waiting make the situations and results quantitative.