qualitative research language

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on September 5, 2024.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, September 05). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved October 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Qualitative Research: Getting Started

Zubin austin, jane sutton.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Address correspondence to: Dr Zubin Austin, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto ON M5S 3M2, e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

As scientifically trained clinicians, pharmacists may be more familiar and comfortable with the concept of quantitative rather than qualitative research. Quantitative research can be defined as “the means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables which in turn can be measured so that numbered data can be analyzed using statistical procedures”. 1 Pharmacists may have used such methods to carry out audits or surveys within their own practice settings; if so, they may have had a sense of “something missing” from their data. What is missing from quantitative research methods is the voice of the participant. In a quantitative study, large amounts of data can be collected about the number of people who hold certain attitudes toward their health and health care, but what qualitative study tells us is why people have thoughts and feelings that might affect the way they respond to that care and how it is given (in this way, qualitative and quantitative data are frequently complementary). Possibly the most important point about qualitative research is that its practitioners do not seek to generalize their findings to a wider population. Rather, they attempt to find examples of behaviour, to clarify the thoughts and feelings of study participants, and to interpret participants’ experiences of the phenomena of interest, in order to find explanations for human behaviour in a given context.

WHAT IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?

Much of the work of clinicians (including pharmacists) takes place within a social, clinical, or interpersonal context where statistical procedures and numeric data may be insufficient to capture how patients and health care professionals feel about patients’ care. Qualitative research involves asking participants about their experiences of things that happen in their lives. It enables researchers to obtain insights into what it feels like to be another person and to understand the world as another experiences it.

Qualitative research was historically employed in fields such as sociology, history, and anthropology. 2 Miles and Huberman 2 said that qualitative data “are a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. With qualitative data one can preserve chronological flow, see precisely which events lead to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanations.” Qualitative methods are concerned with how human behaviour can be explained, within the framework of the social structures in which that behaviour takes place. 3 So, in the context of health care, and hospital pharmacy in particular, researchers can, for example, explore how patients feel about their care, about their medicines, or indeed about “being a patient”.

THE IMPORTANCE OF METHODOLOGY

Smith 4 has described methodology as the “explanation of the approach, methods and procedures with some justification for their selection.” It is essential that researchers have robust theories that underpin the way they conduct their research—this is called “methodology”. It is also important for researchers to have a thorough understanding of various methodologies, to ensure alignment between their own positionality (i.e., bias or stance), research questions, and objectives. Clinicians may express reservations about the value or impact of qualitative research, given their perceptions that it is inherently subjective or biased, that it does not seek to be reproducible across different contexts, and that it does not produce generalizable findings. Other clinicians may express nervousness or hesitation about using qualitative methods, claiming that their previous “scientific” training and experience have not prepared them for the ambiguity and interpretative nature of qualitative data analysis. In both cases, these clinicians are depriving themselves of opportunities to understand complex or ambiguous situations, phenomena, or processes in a different way.

Qualitative researchers generally begin their work by recognizing that the position (or world view) of the researcher exerts an enormous influence on the entire research enterprise. Whether explicitly understood and acknowledged or not, this world view shapes the way in which research questions are raised and framed, methods selected, data collected and analyzed, and results reported. 5 A broad range of different methods and methodologies are available within the qualitative tradition, and no single review paper can adequately capture the depth and nuance of these diverse options. Here, given space constraints, we highlight certain options for illustrative purposes only, emphasizing that they are only a sample of what may be available to you as a prospective qualitative researcher. We encourage you to continue your own study of this area to identify methods and methodologies suitable to your questions and needs, beyond those highlighted here.

The following are some of the methodologies commonly used in qualitative research:

Ethnography generally involves researchers directly observing participants in their natural environments over time. A key feature of ethnography is the fact that natural settings, unadapted for the researchers’ interests, are used. In ethnography, the natural setting or environment is as important as the participants, and such methods have the advantage of explicitly acknowledging that, in the real world, environmental constraints and context influence behaviours and outcomes. 6 An example of ethnographic research in pharmacy might involve observations to determine how pharmacists integrate into family health teams. Such a study would also include collection of documents about participants’ lives from the participants themselves and field notes from the researcher. 7

Grounded theory, first described by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, 8 is a framework for qualitative research that suggests that theory must derive from data, unlike other forms of research, which suggest that data should be used to test theory. Grounded theory may be particularly valuable when little or nothing is known or understood about a problem, situation, or context, and any attempt to start with a hypothesis or theory would be conjecture at best. 9 An example of the use of grounded theory in hospital pharmacy might be to determine potential roles for pharmacists in a new or underserviced clinical area. As with other qualitative methodologies, grounded theory provides researchers with a process that can be followed to facilitate the conduct of such research. As an example, Thurston and others 10 used constructivist grounded theory to explore the availability of arthritis care among indigenous people of Canada and were able to identify a number of influences on health care for this population.

Phenomenology attempts to understand problems, ideas, and situations from the perspective of common understanding and experience rather than differences. 10 Phenomenology is about understanding how human beings experience their world. It gives researchers a powerful tool with which to understand subjective experience. In other words, 2 people may have the same diagnosis, with the same treatment prescribed, but the ways in which they experience that diagnosis and treatment will be different, even though they may have some experiences in common. Phenomenology helps researchers to explore those experiences, thoughts, and feelings and helps to elicit the meaning underlying how people behave. As an example, Hancock and others 11 used a phenomenological approach to explore health care professionals’ views of the diagnosis and management of heart failure since publication of an earlier study in 2003. Their findings revealed that barriers to effective treatment for heart failure had not changed in 10 years and provided a new understanding of why this was the case.

ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER

For any researcher, the starting point for research must be articulation of his or her research world view. This core feature of qualitative work is increasingly seen in quantitative research too: the explicit acknowledgement of one’s position, biases, and assumptions, so that readers can better understand the particular researcher. Reflexivity describes the processes whereby the act of engaging in research actually affects the process being studied, calling into question the notion of “detached objectivity”. Here, the researcher’s own subjectivity is as critical to the research process and output as any other variable. Applications of reflexivity may include participant-observer research, where the researcher is actually one of the participants in the process or situation being researched and must then examine it from these divergent perspectives. 12 Some researchers believe that objectivity is a myth and that attempts at impartiality will fail because human beings who happen to be researchers cannot isolate their own backgrounds and interests from the conduct of a study. 5 Rather than aspire to an unachievable goal of “objectivity”, it is better to simply be honest and transparent about one’s own subjectivities, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions about the interpretations that are presented through the research itself. For new (and experienced) qualitative researchers, an important first step is to step back and articulate your own underlying biases and assumptions. The following questions can help to begin this reflection process:

Why am I interested in this topic? To answer this question, try to identify what is driving your enthusiasm, energy, and interest in researching this subject.

What do I really think the answer is? Asking this question helps to identify any biases you may have through honest reflection on what you expect to find. You can then “bracket” those assumptions to enable the participants’ voices to be heard.

What am I getting out of this? In many cases, pressures to publish or “do” research make research nothing more than an employment requirement. How does this affect your interest in the question or its outcomes, or the depth to which you are willing to go to find information?

What do others in my professional community think of this work—and of me? As a researcher, you will not be operating in a vacuum; you will be part of a complex social and interpersonal world. These external influences will shape your views and expectations of yourself and your work. Acknowledging this influence and its potential effects on personal behaviour will facilitate greater self-scrutiny throughout the research process.

FROM FRAMEWORKS TO METHODS

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.

Qualitative research is concerned with participants’ own experiences of a life event, and the aim is to interpret what participants have said in order to explain why they have said it. Thus, methods should be chosen that enable participants to express themselves openly and without constraint. The framework selected by the researcher to conduct the research may direct the project toward specific methods. From among the numerous methods used by qualitative researchers, we outline below the three most frequently encountered.

DATA COLLECTION

Patton 12 has described an interview as “open-ended questions and probes yielding in-depth responses about people’s experiences, perceptions, opinions, feelings, and knowledge. Data consists of verbatim quotations and sufficient content/context to be interpretable”. Researchers may use a structured or unstructured interview approach. Structured interviews rely upon a predetermined list of questions framed algorithmically to guide the interviewer. This approach resists improvisation and following up on hunches, but has the advantage of facilitating consistency between participants. In contrast, unstructured or semistructured interviews may begin with some defined questions, but the interviewer has considerable latitude to adapt questions to the specific direction of responses, in an effort to allow for more intuitive and natural conversations between researchers and participants. Generally, you should continue to interview additional participants until you have saturated your field of interest, i.e., until you are not hearing anything new. The number of participants is therefore dependent on the richness of the data, though Miles and Huberman 2 suggested that more than 15 cases can make analysis complicated and “unwieldy”.

Focus Groups

Patton 12 has described the focus group as a primary means of collecting qualitative data. In essence, focus groups are unstructured interviews with multiple participants, which allow participants and a facilitator to interact freely with one another and to build on ideas and conversation. This method allows for the collection of group-generated data, which can be a challenging experience.

Observations

Patton 12 described observation as a useful tool in both quantitative and qualitative research: “[it involves] descriptions of activities, behaviours, actions, conversations, interpersonal interactions, organization or community processes or any other aspect of observable human experience”. Observation is critical in both interviews and focus groups, as nonalignment between verbal and nonverbal data frequently can be the result of sarcasm, irony, or other conversational techniques that may be confusing or open to interpretation. Observation can also be used as a stand-alone tool for exploring participants’ experiences, whether or not the researcher is a participant in the process.

Selecting the most appropriate and practical method is an important decision and must be taken carefully. Those unfamiliar with qualitative research may assume that “anyone” can interview, observe, or facilitate a focus group; however, it is important to recognize that the quality of data collected through qualitative methods is a direct reflection of the skills and competencies of the researcher. 13 The hardest thing to do during an interview is to sit back and listen to participants. They should be doing most of the talking—it is their perception of their own life-world that the researcher is trying to understand. Sophisticated interpersonal skills are required, in particular the ability to accurately interpret and respond to the nuanced behaviour of participants in various settings. More information about the collection of qualitative data may be found in the “Further Reading” section of this paper.

It is essential that data gathered during interviews, focus groups, and observation sessions are stored in a retrievable format. The most accurate way to do this is by audio-recording (with the participants’ permission). Video-recording may be a useful tool for focus groups, because the body language of group members and how they interact can be missed with audio-recording alone. Recordings should be transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy against the audio- or video-recording, and all personally identifiable information should be removed from the transcript. You are then ready to start your analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

Regardless of the research method used, the researcher must try to analyze or make sense of the participants’ narratives. This analysis can be done by coding sections of text, by writing down your thoughts in the margins of transcripts, or by making separate notes about the data collection. Coding is the process by which raw data (e.g., transcripts from interviews and focus groups or field notes from observations) are gradually converted into usable data through the identification of themes, concepts, or ideas that have some connection with each other. It may be that certain words or phrases are used by different participants, and these can be drawn together to allow the researcher an opportunity to focus findings in a more meaningful manner. The researcher will then give the words, phrases, or pieces of text meaningful names that exemplify what the participants are saying. This process is referred to as “theming”. Generating themes in an orderly fashion out of the chaos of transcripts or field notes can be a daunting task, particularly since it may involve many pages of raw data. Fortunately, sophisticated software programs such as NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd) now exist to support researchers in converting data into themes; familiarization with such software supports is of considerable benefit to researchers and is strongly recommended. Manual coding is possible with small and straightforward data sets, but the management of qualitative data is a complexity unto itself, one that is best addressed through technological and software support.

There is both an art and a science to coding, and the second checking of themes from data is well advised (where feasible) to enhance the face validity of the work and to demonstrate reliability. Further reliability-enhancing mechanisms include “member checking”, where participants are given an opportunity to actually learn about and respond to the researchers’ preliminary analysis and coding of data. Careful documentation of various iterations of “coding trees” is important. These structures allow readers to understand how and why raw data were converted into a theme and what rules the researcher is using to govern inclusion or exclusion of specific data within or from a theme. Coding trees may be produced iteratively: after each interview, the researcher may immediately code and categorize data into themes to facilitate subsequent interviews and allow for probing with subsequent participants as necessary. At the end of the theming process, you will be in a position to tell the participants’ stories illustrated by quotations from your transcripts. For more information on different ways to manage qualitative data, see the “Further Reading” section at the end of this paper.

ETHICAL ISSUES

In most circumstances, qualitative research involves human beings or the things that human beings produce (documents, notes, etc.). As a result, it is essential that such research be undertaken in a manner that places the safety, security, and needs of participants at the forefront. Although interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires may seem innocuous and “less dangerous” than taking blood samples, it is important to recognize that the way participants are represented in research can be significantly damaging. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the potential participants when designing your research and ask yourself these questions:

Are the requests you are making of potential participants reasonable?

Are you putting them at unnecessary risk or inconvenience?

Have you identified and addressed the specific needs of particular groups?

Where possible, attempting anonymization of data is strongly recommended, bearing in mind that true anonymization may be difficult, as participants can sometimes be recognized from their stories. Balancing the responsibility to report findings accurately and honestly with the potential harm to the participants involved can be challenging. Advice on the ethical considerations of research is generally available from research ethics boards and should be actively sought in these challenging situations.

GETTING STARTED

Pharmacists may be hesitant to embark on research involving qualitative methods because of a perceived lack of skills or confidence. Overcoming this barrier is the most important first step, as pharmacists can benefit from inclusion of qualitative methods in their research repertoire. Partnering with others who are more experienced and who can provide mentorship can be a valuable strategy. Reading reports of research studies that have utilized qualitative methods can provide insights and ideas for personal use; such papers are routinely included in traditional databases accessed by pharmacists. Engaging in dialogue with members of a research ethics board who have qualitative expertise can also provide useful assistance, as well as saving time during the ethics review process itself. The references at the end of this paper may provide some additional support to allow you to begin incorporating qualitative methods into your research.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research offers unique opportunities for understanding complex, nuanced situations where interpersonal ambiguity and multiple interpretations exist. Qualitative research may not provide definitive answers to such complex questions, but it can yield a better understanding and a springboard for further focused work. There are multiple frameworks, methods, and considerations involved in shaping effective qualitative research. In most cases, these begin with self-reflection and articulation of positionality by the researcher. For some, qualitative research may appear commonsensical and easy; for others, it may appear daunting, given its high reliance on direct participant– researcher interactions. For yet others, qualitative research may appear subjective, unscientific, and consequently unreliable. All these perspectives reflect a lack of understanding of how effective qualitative research actually occurs. When undertaken in a rigorous manner, qualitative research provides unique opportunities for expanding our understanding of the social and clinical world that we inhabit.

Further Reading

• Breakwell GM, Hammond S, Fife-Schaw C, editors. Research methods in psychology. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig C. Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham (UK): Open University Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchel ML. Collecting qualitative data: a field manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogden R. Bias. In: Given LM, editor. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc; 2008. pp. 61–2. [ Google Scholar ]

This article is the seventh in the CJHP Research Primer Series, an initiative of the CJHP Editorial Board and the CSHP Research Committee. The planned 2-year series is intended to appeal to relatively inexperienced researchers, with the goal of building research capacity among practising pharmacists. The articles, presenting simple but rigorous guidance to encourage and support novice researchers, are being solicited from authors with appropriate expertise.

Previous article in this series:

Bond CM. The research jigsaw: how to get started. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):28–30.

Tully MP. Research: articulating questions, generating hypotheses, and choosing study designs. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):31–4.

Loewen P. Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(2):133–7.

Tsuyuki RT. Designing pharmacy practice research trials. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(3):226–9.

Bresee LC. An introduction to developing surveys for pharmacy practice research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(4):286–91.

Gamble JM. An introduction to the fundamentals of cohort and case–control studies. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(5):366–72.

Competing interests: None declared.

• 1. Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Miles B, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Flick U, Von Kardorff E, Steinke I. A companion to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Smith FJ. Research methods in pharmacy practice. London (UK): Pharmaceutical Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. New York (NY): Taylor and Francis; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Latif A, Boardman HF, Pollock K. A qualitative study exploring the impact and consequence of the medicines use review service on pharmacy support-staff. Pharm Pract. 2013;11(2):118–24. doi: 10.4321/s1886-36552013000200009. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. What is grounded theory? Mill Valley (CA): Grounded Theory Institute; 2008. [cited 2014 Sep 29]. Available from: www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx . [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory. San Francisco (CA): Sociology Press; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Thurston WE, Coupal S, Jones CA, Crowshoe LF, Marshall DA, Homik J, et al. Discordant indigenous and provider frames explain challenges in improving access to arthritis care: a qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory. Int J Equity Health. 2014;13:46. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-13-46. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Hancock HC, Close H, Fuat A, Murphy JJ, Hungin AP, Mason JM. Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure have not changed in the past 10 years: a qualitative study and national survey. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e003866. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003866. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Arksey H, Knight P. Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource with examples. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (128.2 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Language and Communication in Cross-Cultural Qualitative Research

Cite this chapter.

• Monique M. Hennink 9  

Part of the book series: Social Indicators Research Series ((SINS,volume 34))

6562 Accesses

46 Citations

Language and communication are the bedrock of qualitative enquiry. Language is a fundamental tool through which qualitative researchers seek to understand human behaviour, social processes and the cultural meanings that inscribe human behaviour. However, when conducting cross-cultural research, issues of language and communication become more complex and often require the assistance of interpreters/translators as “cultural brokers”. Cross-cultural research poses numerous methodological, epistemological and practical challenges, which are rarely debated in qualitative research. This chapter outlines the epistemological approach to language and communication in different research paradigms and demonstrates the implications of this for the rigour of qualitative enquiry. In particular, concepts of transparency, subjectivity and reflexivity, which are indicators of methodological rigour in qualitative research, are typically not applied to language assistants in cross-cultural qualitative research despite the critical role of language assistants in the generation of knowledge and its cultural interpretation. Improving cross-cultural qualitative research involves understanding how language and communication can affect rigour and addressing language and communication issues that underlie the entire research process. Failure to recognise and acknowledge the role of language and communication issues in cross-cultural research may impact on the rigour and reliability of the research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Doing Cross-Cultural Research: An Introduction

Finding Meaning: A Cross-Language Mixed-Methods Research Strategy

Adamson, J., & Donovan, J. L. (2002). Research in black and white. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 816-825.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, F., Shik, A., Vanza, R., Cheung, A., George, U., & Stewart, D. E. (2004). Voices of South Asian women: Immigration and mental health. Women & Health, 40(4), 113-130.

Aroian, K. J., Wu, B., & Tran, T. V. (2005). Health care and social service use among Chinese immigrant elders. Research in Nursing & Health, 28, 95-105.

Barata, P. C., Gucciardi, E. Ahmad, F., & Stewart, D. E. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on research participation and informed consent. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 479-490.

Benatar, S. R., & Singer, P. A. (2000). A new look at international research ethics. British Medical Journal, 321 (September 30), 824-826.

Beoku-Betts, J. (1994). When black is not enough: Doing field research among Gullah women. NWSA Journal, 6(3), 413-433.

Google Scholar  

Bhopal, K. (2001). Researching South Asian women: Issues of sameness and difference in the research process. Journal of Gender Studies, 10(3), 279-286.

Birman, D. (2005). Ethical issues in research with immigrants and refugees. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities (pp. 155- 177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bishop, R. (2005). Freeing ourselves from neocolonial domination in research: A Kaupapa M ã ori approach to creating knowledge. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition (pp. 109- 138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Borkan, J. M., Morad, M., & Shvarts, S. (2000). Universal health care? The views of Negev Bedouin Arabs on health services. Health Policy and Planning, 15(2), 207-216.

Brayboy, B. M. & Deyhle, D. (2000). Insider-outsider: Researchers in American Indian communi-ties. T heory into Practice 39(3), 163-169.

Chris, J., & Escandon-Dominguez, S. (2003). Identifying and recruiting Mexican-American partners and sustaining community partnerships. Journal of Transcultural Nursing,14(3), 255-271.

Christians, C. G. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research,3rd edition(pp.139-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B., & D. M. M. St. George, (2002). Distrust, race and research. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 2458-2463.

Crigger, N. J., Holcomb, L., & Weiss, J. (2001). Fundamentalism, multiculturalism, and prob-lems Conducting research with populations in developing nations. Nursing Ethics, 8(5), 459-469.

Dawson, L., & Kass, N. E. (2005). Views of US researchers about informed consent in interna-tional collaborative research. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1211-1222.

d é Ishtar, Z. (2005a). Striving for a common language: A white feminist parallel to indigenous ways of knowing and researching. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 357-368.

d é Ishtar, Z. (2005b). Living on the ground: The “culture woman” and the “missus” . Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 369-380.

dé Ishtar, Z. (2005c). Holding Yawulyu: White culture and black women’s law . North Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dunbar, C., Rodriguez, D., & Parker, L. (2002). Race, subjectivity, and the interview process. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 279- 298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Edwards, R. (1998). A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(1), 197-205.

Eide, P., & Allen, C. B. (2005). Recruiting transcultural qualitative research participants: A conceptual model. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods 4(2). Article 4. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/ ∼ijqm/backissues/4_2/pdf/eide.pdf (Accessed 9/10/2005).

Esposito, N. (2001). From meaning to meaning: The influence of translation technique on non-English focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 568-579.

Ezeh, P-J. (2003). Integration and its challenges in participant observation. Qualitative Research, 3 (2), 191-205.

Fisher, C. B., & Ragsdale, K. (2005). ‘Goodness-of-fit ethics for multicultural research. In J. E. Trimble & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities (pp. 3- 25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fluehr-Lobban, C. (1994). Informed consent in anthropological research: We are not exempt. Human Organization, 53(1), 1-10.

Fluehr-Lobban, C. (1998). Ethics. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 173- 202). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Fluehr-Lobban, C. (Ed.) (2003). Ethics and the profession of anthropology,2nd edition. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Freimuth, V. S., Quinn, S. C., Thomas, S. B., Cole, G., Zook, E., & Duncan, T. (2001). African American’s views on research and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 797-808.

Gibson, N., Cave, A., Doering, D., Ortiz, L., & Harms, P. (2005). Socio-cultural factors influenc-ing prevention and treatment of tuberculosis in immigrant and Aboriginal communities in Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 931-942.

Gostin, L. O. (1995). Informed consent, cultural sensitivity, and respect for persons. Journal of American Medical Association, 274, 844-845.

Groger, L., Mayberry, P., & Straker, J. (1999). What we didn’t learn because of who would not talk to us. Qualitative Health Research 9(6), 829-835.

Hall, B. L., & Kulig, J. C. (2004). Kanadier Mennonites: A case study examining research challenges among religious groups. Qualitative Health Research, 14(3), 359-368.

Hennings, J., Williams, J., & Haque, B. N. (1996). Exploring the health needs of Bangladeshi women: A case study in using qualitative research methods. Health Education Journal, 55, 11-23.

Hoeyer, K., Dahlager, L., & Lyn ö e, N. (2005). Conflicting notions of research ethics: The mutu-ally challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1741-1749.

Izugbara, C. O. (2000). Observations bearing on fieldworkers’ manners and conduct. I ndigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 8(3), 19.

Jackson, M. S., & Mead Niblo, D. (2003). The role of qualitative methodology in cross-cultural research. Qualitative Research Journal, 3(1), 18-27.

Jentsch, B. (1998). The “i nterpreter effect”: Rendering interpreters visible in cross-cultural research and methodology. Journal of European Social Policy, 8(4), 275-289.

Lange, J. W. (2002). Methodological concerns for non-Hispanic investigators conducting research with Hispanic Americans. Research in Nursing & Health, 25, 411-419.

Laverack, G. R., & Brown, K. M. (2003). Qualitative research in a cross-cultural context: Fijian experiences. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 333-342.

Leaning, J. (2001). Ethics of research in refugee populations. Lancet, 357(9266), 1432-1433.

Leflar, R. B. (1997). The cautious acceptance of informed consent in Japan. Medical Law 16, 705-720.

Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage Publications.

Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods,2nd edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Liamputtong Rice, P. (1996). Health research and ethnic communities: Reflections on practice. In D. Colquhoun & A. Kellehear (Eds.), Health research in practice, Vol. 2: Personal experiences, public issues (pp. 50- 61). London: Chapman & Hall.

Liamputtong Rice, P. (2000). Hmong women and reproduction . Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (2005). Epilogue: The eighth and ninth moments - qualitative research in/and the fractured future. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research,3rd edition (pp.1115 - 1126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lindenberg, C., Solorzano, R, Vilaro, F., & Westerbrook, L. (2001). Challenges and strategies for conducting intervention research with culturally diverse populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 12(2), 132-139.

Loue, S., Okello, D., & Kawuma, M. (1996). Research bioethics in the Ugandan context: A pro-gram summary. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 24, 47-53.

Lu, Y., Trout, S. K., Lu, K., & Creswell, J. W. (2005). The needs of AIDS-infected individuals in rural China. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1149-1163.

Macklin, R. (2000). Informed consent for research: International perspectives. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 55, 290-293.

Macklin, R. (2004). Double standards in medical research in developing countries . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Madriz, E.L. (1998). Using focus groups with lower socioeconomic status Latina women. Qualitative Inquiry 4(1), 114-129.

Marshall, A., & Batten, S. (2004). Researching across cultures: Issues of ethics and power. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(3), Art, 39. Available at: http://www.qualita- tive-research.net/fqs-texte/3-04/04-3-39-e.htm (Accessed 14/10/2005).

Marston, C. (2005). What is heterosexual coercion? Interpreting narratives from young people in Mexico City. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(1), 68-91.

Maynard-Tucker, G. (2000). Conducting focus groups in developing countries: Skill training for local bilingual facilitators. Qualitative Health Research,10(3), 396-410.

Meadows, L. M., Lagendyk, L. E., Thurston, W. E. & Eisener, A. C. (2003). Balancing culture, ethics, and methods in qualitative health research with Aboriginal peoples. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods 2(4). Article 1. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/ ∼iiqm/ backissues/2_4/pdf/meadows.pdf (Accessed 9/10/2005).

Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405-416.

Michaud, P-A., Blum, R. W., & Slap, G. B. (2001). Cross-cultural surveys of adolescent health and behavior: Progress and problems. Social Science & Medicine, 53, 1237-1246.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications.

Molyneux, C. S., Peshu, N., & Marsh, K. (2004). Understanding of informed consent in a l ow-income setting: Three case studies from the Kenyan Coast. Social Science & Medicine, 59(12), 2547-2559.

Molyneux, C. S., Wassenaar, D. R., Peshu, N., & Marsh, K. (2005). ‘Even if they ask you to stand by a tree all day, you will have to do it (Laughter) …!’: Community voices on the notion and practice of informed consent for biomedical research in developing countries. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 443-454.

Molzahn, A. E., Starzomski, R., McDonald, M., & O’Laughlin, C. (2005). Chinese Canadian beliefs toward organ donation. Qualitative Health Research, 15(2), 82-98.

Papadopoulos, I., & Lees, S. (2002). Developing culturally competent researchers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 258-264.

Phellas, C. N. (2000). Cultural and sexual identities in in-depth interviewing. In C. Truman, D. M. Mertens & B. Humphries (Eds.), Research and Inequality (pp. 52 - 64). London: UCI.

Piquemal, N. (2001). Free and informed consent in research involving aative American communi-ties. A merican Indian Culture and Research Journal, 25(1), 65-79.

Redmond, M. (2003). Cultural and ethical challenges in cross-national research: Reflections on a European union study on child and youth migration. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(4). Article 2. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/ ∼ijqm/backissues/2_4/pdf/red-mond.pdf (Accessed 9/10/2005).

Ryen, A. (2002). Cross-cultural interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 335 - 354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shin, K. R., Cho, M.O. & Kim, J.S. (2005). The meaning of death as experienced by elderly women of a Korean clan. Qualitative Health Research, 15(1), 5-18.

Sin, C.H. (2004). Sampling minority ethnic older people in Britain. Ageing & Society, 24, 257 - 277.

Sin, C.H. (2005). Seeking informed consent: Reflections on research practice. Sociology, 39(2), 277-294.

Sixsmith, J., Boneham, M., & Goldring, J. (2003). Accessing the community: Gaining insider perspectives from the outside. Qualitative Health Research, 13(4), 578-589.

Small, R., Yelland, J., Lumley, J., & Liamputtong Rice, P. (1999a). Cross-cultural research: Trying to do it better 1. Issues in study design. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23 (4), 385-389.

Small, R., Yelland, J., Lumley, J, Liamputtong Rice, P., Cotronei, V., & Warren, R. (1999b). Cross-cultural research: Trying to do it better 2. Enhancing data quality. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 390-395.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples . London and Dunedin: Zed Books and University of Otago Press.

Smith, L. T. (2000). Kaupapa M ã ori research. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 225 - 247). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition (pp. 85 - 108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spicer, N. J. (2005). Sedentarization and children’s health: Changing discourses in the northeast Badia of Jordan. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2165-2176.

Struthers, R., & Peden-McAlpine, C. (2005). Phenomenological research among Canadian and United States indigenous populations: Oral tradition and quintessence of time. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1264-1276.

Tangwa, G. B. (2004). Between universalism and relativism: A conceptual exploration of prob-lems in formulating and applying international biomedical ethical guidelines. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 63-67.

Temple, B. (1997). Watch your tongue: Issues in translation and cross-cultural research. Sociology, 31(3), 607-618.

Temple, B. (2002). Crossed-wires: Interpreters, translators, and bilingual workers in cross-language research. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 844 - 854.

Temple, B., & Edwards, R. (2002). Interpreters/translators and cross-language research: Reflexitivity and border crossings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2). Article 1. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/ ∼ijqm (Accessed 9/10/2005).

Thomas, G. (1990). Afro-Caribbean elderly people: Coping with ageing . Coventry, West Midlands: Social Care Practice Centre, Department of Applied Social Studies, University of Warwick.

Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American perspec-tive. Educational Researchers, 31(9), 3-12.

Tsai, J. H-C., Choe, J. H., Lim, J. M. C., Acorda, E., Chan, N. L., Taylor, V. M., & Tu, S-P. (2004). Developing culturally competent health knowledge: Issues of data analysis of cross-cultural, cross-language qualitative research. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3 (4). Article 2. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/ ∼iiqm/backissues/3_4/pdf/tsai.pdf (Accessed 9/10/2005).

Turner, L. (1998). An anthropological exploration of contemporary bioethics: The varieties of common sense. Journal of Medical Ethics, 24(2), 127-133.

Turner, L. (2005). From the local to the global: Bioethics and the concept of culture. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 30(3), 305-320.

Weinfurt, K., & Maghaddam, F. (2001). Culture and social distance: A case study of methodologi-cal cautions. Journal of Social Psychology, 121(1), 101-110.

Winslow, W., Honein, W., & Elzubeir, M. A. (2002). Seeking Emirati women’s voices: The use of focus groups with an Arab population. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 566-575.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, 30322, Georgia, USA

Monique M. Hennink ( Rollins Associate Professor )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong ( Personal Chair in Public Health ) ( Personal Chair in Public Health )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Hennink, M.M. (2008). Language and Communication in Cross-Cultural Qualitative Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Doing Cross-Cultural Research. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_2

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-1-4020-8566-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-8567-3

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Introduction to qualitative research methods – Part I

Shagufta bhangu, fabien provost, carlo caduff.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Address for correspondence: Prof. Carlo Caduf, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 2022 Nov 28; Accepted 2022 Nov 29; Issue date 2023 Jan-Mar.

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Qualitative research methods are widely used in the social sciences and the humanities, but they can also complement quantitative approaches used in clinical research. In this article, we discuss the key features and contributions of qualitative research methods.

Keywords: Qualitative research, social sciences, sociology

INTRODUCTION

Qualitative research methods refer to techniques of investigation that rely on nonstatistical and nonnumerical methods of data collection, analysis, and evidence production. Qualitative research techniques provide a lens for learning about nonquantifiable phenomena such as people's experiences, languages, histories, and cultures. In this article, we describe the strengths and role of qualitative research methods and how these can be employed in clinical research.

Although frequently employed in the social sciences and humanities, qualitative research methods can complement clinical research. These techniques can contribute to a better understanding of the social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions of health and illness. Social scientists and scholars in the humanities rely on a wide range of methods, including interviews, surveys, participant observation, focus groups, oral history, and archival research to examine both structural conditions and lived experience [ Figure 1 ]. Such research can not only provide robust and reliable data but can also humanize and add richness to our understanding of the ways in which people in different parts of the world perceive and experience illness and how they interact with medical institutions, systems, and therapeutics.

Examples of qualitative research techniques

Qualitative research methods should not be seen as tools that can be applied independently of theory. It is important for these tools to be based on more than just method. In their research, social scientists and scholars in the humanities emphasize social theory. Departing from a reductionist psychological model of individual behavior that often blames people for their illness, social theory focuses on relations – disease happens not simply in people but between people. This type of theoretically informed and empirically grounded research thus examines not just patients but interactions between a wide range of actors (e.g., patients, family members, friends, neighbors, local politicians, medical practitioners at all levels, and from many systems of medicine, researchers, policymakers) to give voice to the lived experiences, motivations, and constraints of all those who are touched by disease.

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

In identifying the factors that contribute to the occurrence and persistence of a phenomenon, it is paramount that we begin by asking the question: what do we know about this reality? How have we come to know this reality? These two processes, which we can refer to as the “what” question and the “how” question, are the two that all scientists (natural and social) grapple with in their research. We refer to these as the ontological and epistemological questions a research study must address. Together, they help us create a suitable methodology for any research study[ 1 ] [ Figure 2 ]. Therefore, as with quantitative methods, there must be a justifiable and logical method for understanding the world even for qualitative methods. By engaging with these two dimensions, the ontological and the epistemological, we open a path for learning that moves away from commonsensical understandings of the world, and the perpetuation of stereotypes and toward robust scientific knowledge production.

Developing a research methodology

Every discipline has a distinct research philosophy and way of viewing the world and conducting research. Philosophers and historians of science have extensively studied how these divisions and specializations have emerged over centuries.[ 1 , 2 , 3 ] The most important distinction between quantitative and qualitative research techniques lies in the nature of the data they study and analyze. While the former focus on statistical, numerical, and quantitative aspects of phenomena and employ the same in data collection and analysis, qualitative techniques focus on humanistic, descriptive, and qualitative aspects of phenomena.[ 4 ]

For the findings of any research study to be reliable, they must employ the appropriate research techniques that are uniquely tailored to the phenomena under investigation. To do so, researchers must choose techniques based on their specific research questions and understand the strengths and limitations of the different tools available to them. Since clinical work lies at the intersection of both natural and social phenomena, it means that it must study both: biological and physiological phenomena (natural, quantitative, and objective phenomena) and behavioral and cultural phenomena (social, qualitative, and subjective phenomena). Therefore, clinical researchers can gain from both sets of techniques in their efforts to produce medical knowledge and bring forth scientifically informed change.

KEY FEATURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

In this section, we discuss the key features and contributions of qualitative research methods [ Figure 3 ]. We describe the specific strengths and limitations of these techniques and discuss how they can be deployed in scientific investigations.

Key features of qualitative research methods

One of the most important contributions of qualitative research methods is that they provide rigorous, theoretically sound, and rational techniques for the analysis of subjective, nebulous, and difficult-to-pin-down phenomena. We are aware, for example, of the role that social factors play in health care but find it hard to qualify and quantify these in our research studies. Often, we find researchers basing their arguments on “common sense,” developing research studies based on assumptions about the people that are studied. Such commonsensical assumptions are perhaps among the greatest impediments to knowledge production. For example, in trying to understand stigma, surveys often make assumptions about its reasons and frequently associate it with vague and general common sense notions of “fear” and “lack of information.” While these may be at work, to make such assumptions based on commonsensical understandings, and without conducting research inhibit us from exploring the multiple social factors that are at work under the guise of stigma.

In unpacking commonsensical understandings and researching experiences, relationships, and other phenomena, qualitative researchers are assisted by their methodological commitment to open-ended research. By open-ended research, we mean that these techniques take on an unbiased and exploratory approach in which learnings from the field and from research participants, are recorded and analyzed to learn about the world.[ 5 ] This orientation is made possible by qualitative research techniques that are particularly effective in learning about specific social, cultural, economic, and political milieus.

Second, qualitative research methods equip us in studying complex phenomena. Qualitative research methods provide scientific tools for exploring and identifying the numerous contributing factors to an occurrence. Rather than establishing one or the other factor as more important, qualitative methods are open-ended, inductive (ground-up), and empirical. They allow us to understand the object of our analysis from multiple vantage points and in its dispersion and caution against predetermined notions of the object of inquiry. They encourage researchers instead to discover a reality that is not yet given, fixed, and predetermined by the methods that are used and the hypotheses that underlie the study.

Once the multiple factors at work in a phenomenon have been identified, we can employ quantitative techniques and embark on processes of measurement, establish patterns and regularities, and analyze the causal and correlated factors at work through statistical techniques. For example, a doctor may observe that there is a high patient drop-out in treatment. Before carrying out a study which relies on quantitative techniques, qualitative research methods such as conversation analysis, interviews, surveys, or even focus group discussions may prove more effective in learning about all the factors that are contributing to patient default. After identifying the multiple, intersecting factors, quantitative techniques can be deployed to measure each of these factors through techniques such as correlational or regression analyses. Here, the use of quantitative techniques without identifying the diverse factors influencing patient decisions would be premature. Qualitative techniques thus have a key role to play in investigations of complex realities and in conducting rich exploratory studies while embracing rigorous and philosophically grounded methodologies.

Third, apart from subjective, nebulous, and complex phenomena, qualitative research techniques are also effective in making sense of irrational, illogical, and emotional phenomena. These play an important role in understanding logics at work among patients, their families, and societies. Qualitative research techniques are aided by their ability to shift focus away from the individual as a unit of analysis to the larger social, cultural, political, economic, and structural forces at work in health. As health-care practitioners and researchers focused on biological, physiological, disease and therapeutic processes, sociocultural, political, and economic conditions are often peripheral or ignored in day-to-day clinical work. However, it is within these latter processes that both health-care practices and patient lives are entrenched. Qualitative researchers are particularly adept at identifying the structural conditions such as the social, cultural, political, local, and economic conditions which contribute to health care and experiences of disease and illness.

For example, the decision to delay treatment by a patient may be understood as an irrational choice impacting his/her chances of survival, but the same may be a result of the patient treating their child's education as a financial priority over his/her own health. While this appears as an “emotional” choice, qualitative researchers try to understand the social and cultural factors that structure, inform, and justify such choices. Rather than assuming that it is an irrational choice, qualitative researchers try to understand the norms and logical grounds on which the patient is making this decision. By foregrounding such logics, stories, fears, and desires, qualitative research expands our analytic precision in learning about complex social worlds, recognizing reasons for medical successes and failures, and interrogating our assumptions about human behavior. These in turn can prove useful in arriving at conclusive, actionable findings which can inform institutional and public health policies and have a very important role to play in any change and transformation we may wish to bring to the societies in which we work.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• 1. Shapin S, Schaffer S. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Uberoi JP. Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1978. Science and Culture. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Poovey M. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1998. A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Creswell JW. 2nd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Bhangu S, Bisshop A, Engelmann S, Meulemans G, Reinert H, Thibault-Picazo Y. Feeling/Following: Creative Experiments and Material Play, Anthropocene Curriculum, Haus der Kulturen der Welt. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science; The Anthropocene Issue. 2016 [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (583.8 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections