phd in qualitative research

PhD in Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies

If you have a deep interest in the methodological, theoretical, and ethical procedures and challenges inherent to social science research and evaluation, this is a program for you. Our students contribute to the methodological and theoretical development of qualitative research and program evaluation.

Our program prepares research methodologists to study and develop theories and methods for conducting empirical and conceptual social science research and evaluation in education and other social science fields. Specifically, this program develops scholars and methodologists who are prepared to contribute to the advancement of innovative theories and methods used in qualitative research and program evaluation.

• Focus on qualitative methodologies with interdisciplinary topics
• Open to students with a variety of educational backgrounds and experiences
• Small cohorts support individual faculty attention and mentorship

Video: Overview of Programs Offered by the Qualitative Research Program

Video: Meet the Qualitative Research Faculty

The organization of the research and evaluation methods degree program recognizes the wide variety of specialties in which you might develop research agendas.

Our mission is to build your capacity to contribute methodological expertise to collaborative research efforts through real-world opportunities in which you develop and practice the skills needed in your area of emphasis. As a result of this experience, you will have a broad knowledge of research methods along with specific expertise in a focused methodology. You can use this knowledge to pursue careers as research methodologists and evaluation specialists in higher education, corporations, and non-profit agencies.

The Ph.D. degree is a 54-credit hour degree program in which students engage in advanced study of qualitative theories and methods, mixed methods, and approaches to evaluation.

• Core Coursework - 21 hours
• Research Seminar - 3 hours
• Elective Coursework - 18 hours
• Internship - 6 hours
• Doctoral hours Minimum of - 3 hours
• Dissertation Minimum of - 3 hours
• TOTAL - 54 hours

Part 1: Apply to the University of Georgia

The Graduate School handles admission for all graduate programs at the University of Georgia, including those in the College of Education. The Graduate School website contains important details about the application process, orientation, and many other useful links to guide you through the process of attending UGA at the graduate level.

Start A Graduate School Application

Part 2: Apply to the Ph.D. in Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies

Please upload the following materials in your online application:

• Personal statement
• Curriculum vitae
• Writing sample (20-25 pages maximum)

Summary of Application Materials

Both the Graduate School and the academic department review application materials simultaneously. The Graduate School then reviews the department’s recommendation and makes the final determination on admission. As an applicant you will receive a formal letter regarding your admission from the Office of Graduate Admissions. You must be admitted to a program to be eligible to register for courses. Admission is granted for a specific semester and is validated by registration for that semester. Applicants must be admitted to the Graduate School before they are eligible to register. International applicants whose primary language is not English must submit scores from the TOEFL or IELTS tests in addition to a Certificate of Finances form. No application will be considered until all materials are received. To apply to the Ph.D. in Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies, applicants must have completed a master’s degree. GRE scores are required for all applications.

Personal Statement

The program requires a personal statement, usually in the form of a letter of 2 to 3 pages, describing your background, work and research experience, interests in research and/or evaluation methodologies, and career aspirations. Specifically, you should be sure to address the following questions:

• What experience or background do you have in research methodologies?
• Why are you interested in the study of qualitative or evaluation methodologies?
• What research or evaluation questions do you hope to pursue, and why?
• In what way will the study of research or evaluation methodologies shape your career?

Writing Sample

You are required to submit a sample of formal writing (20-25 pages maximum). Scholarly or academic writing is preferred whether or not it has been published. If you have not published, recent course papers or work-related reports are appropriate.

Admissions Interviews

After a review of applications, selected applicants will be interviewed by the Ph.D. in Research and Evaluation Methodologies (REM) Admissions Committee early in the Spring semester for a subsequent Fall semester admission.

Deadline To Apply

Log Into Existing Application

Additional Resources

Please use our online form if you have any questions for the department. Please be as specific as possible so that we may quickly assist you.

The College’s programs are taught by dedicated faculty who are experts in a range of areas and are passionate about helping students succeed both in their programs and professionally.

Meet the Faculty View Affiliated Faculty

Most graduate students at UGA are not assigned to a faculty advisor until after admittance. A close working relationship with your advisor is paramount to progressing through your program of study.

Almost all in-state students begin their studies at UGA paying limited tuition or fees. Please note that these amounts are subject to change and are meant to give prospective students an idea of the costs associated with a degree at the University of Georgia College of Education.

Students may qualify for a variety of assistantships, scholarships, and other financial awards to help offset the cost of tuition, housing, and other expenses.

Tuition Rates   Browse Financial Aid

In this program, you will take focused coursework with individual attention from faculty mentors .

Each semester, you will also take part in a seminar that brings together faculty in the qualitative research program to discuss topics of relevance to scholarship and teaching in qualitative research methodologies in higher education.

See for yourself how much UGA College of Education has to offer! Schedule a tour of campus to learn more about the UGA student experience.

Schedule A Visit

Useful Links

• Affiliate Faculty
• Course List
• Graduate Handbook
• Summary of Materials Required by Area of Emphasis
• Projected QUAL Course Schedule
• Qualitative Research Program Community Practices

Testimonials

What first attracted me to the Qualitative Research and Evaluation Ph.D. program was the balance it offers between the philosophy of science and the practical application of research and evaluation. The program’s faculty members are amazing at supporting students’ learning, and at pushing us to be creative, deep thinking, and daring as we explore methodologies. Nuria Jaumot-Pascual, Doctoral Student

My path through the Qualitative Research and Evaluation Ph.D. program had me exploring the depths of qualitative research rarely visited by researchers in the health sciences but that have been essential in my current position as Senior Research Associate at Evidera. Now I find myself often referencing qualitative research theory and history when selecting strategies for new studies or when arranging trainings across my organization. Moreover, the breadth of interests across students in the program provided unique perspectives that enriched my journey. Most of all though, I am impressed with how well the faculty helped guide me through the program, making theory, history, and applied work relevant for my own career goals. Sean Halpin, Former Doctoral Student

I really discovered the world of qualitative research with the Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies Ph.D. program, and the instructors made me adore it. Their support for the students’ learning was so impeccable. They had genial ways to encourage students to think outside the box and to be creative from every point of view, especially when it comes to methodologies. Bidossessi Mariano Ghislain Dossou Kpanou, Former Doctoral Student

• Skip to Content
• Skip to Main Navigation
• Skip to Search

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington IU Bloomington

• Office Directory
• Add or Edit Profile
• Financial Management Practices
• Development and Alumni Relations
• Benefits and Services
• Employee Appreciation Programs
• The Five Functions of DEI
• Communication
• Recruitment
• DEI Dashboard
• 2020 Report
• 2019 Report
• Student Ambassadors
• Education Library
• Education Technology Services
• Graduate Studies
• Courses and Workshops
• Video Production Guidelines
• Promotional Posting Guidelines
• Research and Development
• Records and Reporting
• Dean's Advisory Board
• Service, Leadership, and Outreach
• Student Success
• Diversity Plan
• 100th Anniversary Book
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Targeted Engagements
• Global Gateway for Teachers
• Overseas Short-Term Study Experiences
• External Grant Opportunities
• Our Global Reach
• Faculty and Student Int'l Engagement
• IU Global Gateways
• Indiana Global Education Outreach
• Int'l Partnerships
• Visiting Int'l Scholars
• Int'l Student Ambassadors
• Academic Programs
• International Journals
• News & Events
• Int'l Student Resources
• CAEP Annual Reporting Measures
• CAEP Accreditation Visit Call for Third-Party Comments
• SoE Data Dashboards (Faculty)
• Licensure Requirements
• Employment Outcomes
• Employer Evaluations
• Student Teaching Survey Reports
• Attrition & Completion Rates
• Graduate Survey Results
• Indiana Teachers of the Year
• Emergency Action Plan
• SoE Emergency Information
• School Violence
• Report Facility Issue
• Direct Admit Scholars
• TEP Application Guidelines
• Accessible Virtual Tour
• Field Trips
• Non-School of Education Scholarships
• Graduate Student Funding
• Student Emergency Fund
• Campus Financial Aid Resources
• INSPIRE Living-Learning Center
• All Programs
• License Additions
• Master's Programs
• Doctoral Programs FAQ
• Specialist Programs
• Certificate Programs
• Doctoral Minors
• Licensure Programs
• Transition to Teaching
• New Zealand
• Northern Ireland
• Navajo Nation Program
• Urban Program
• IU Bloomington Students
• Guest Campus Students
• Partner Campus Students
• Student Spotlights
• Teacher Spotlights
• Cost & Financial Aid
• Online Learning
• Tuition and Fees
• Registration
• Block Enrollment Course Information
• Student Teaching Registration Information
• Program Sheets
• Forms & Publications
• Credit Overload Request
• Four Year Plan
• Academic Calendar
• Undergraduate Bulletin
• Background Check
• Early Field Experiences
• Student Teaching Forms
• Preparation
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Student Organizations
• Counseling and Student Services
• Dean's List
• Report Your Concerns
• Scholarships
• Career Coaching
• Student Teaching Fair
• Health and Human Services Career Day
• Explore Possibilities
• Get Experience
• Stay Connected
• Professional Distinction
• Educator Wellbeing Distinction
• Workshops and Training
• Recruiting Policies
• Classroom Presentations
• Graduation Deadlines
• Leave Policy
• Online Students
• Graduation Application
• Guidelines for Multi-Article Dissertations
• G901 Permission Request
• Qualifying Examinations
• 2022 Scholars
• 2021 Scholars
• 2020 Scholars
• 2023 Scholars
• Program-Specific Information
• International Student Ambassadors
• Student Affiliates in School Psychology
• Dissertation & Thesis Announcements
• Approved Core Inquiry Courses
• Holmes Scholars Program
• Initial Licensure
• License Renewal
• Licensing Outside Indiana
• Knowledge Base
• Graduate Bulletin
• Teaching with Technology Lab
• Support Services
• Volunteering Opportunities
• Faculty Directory
• Counseling and Educational Psychology
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Chair's Welcome
• IST Conference
• Faculty Bookshelf
• Faculty Meetings
• Policies and Procedures
• Instructional Consulting
• In Memoriam
• Office of Research and Development
• 2023 Highlights
• Research Centers
• Funded Research
• Research Findings
• Translation to Practice
• Equity in Action
• Overview and Project Timeline
• Analysis in Progress
• Presentations
• Accomplishments
• Teacher Study Group
• "Creative Paths to Peace" Grant
• Proffitt Internal Grant Competition
• Proffitt Summer Faculty Fellowship Program
• Tilaar Faculty Support Fund
• Cost-Share and Matching Funds on External Grant Proposals
• Current Visiting Scholars
• Become a Visiting Scholar
• Visiting Scholar Policies
• COVID-19 Entry Updates
• Flexible Workspace
• Faculty & Staff Giving Campaign
• Donor Spotlights
• Get Involved
• Submit a Nomination
• Alumni Magazine
• Alumni Board of Directors
• Counseling and Wellness Clinic
• Learning and Developmental Evaluation Clinic
• Current Cohort
• Past Cohorts
• Nominate a Teacher
• How to Apply
• Armstrong Teacher Panel Archive
• Current Jacobs Educators
• Past Winners
• Advisory Board
• Teachers' Examples
• Research-to-Practice Briefs
• Speaker Series
• Baxter Online STEM Student Challenges
• Educating for Environmental Change (EfEC)
• Dual Language Immersion (DLI)
• Global Learning for Pre-Service Teachers Workshops
• Global Literacy Invitation Project
• Global STEAM
• In-Service Teachers Workshops
• Principals’ Academy on Internationalizing K-12 Schools
• School of Education Curriculum Internationalization
• Medical Research Education Project
• Project LIFT
• Saturday Art School
• Past Lesson Plans
• Partners in Education (PIE)
• Maker Mobile
• Past Mentors
• Apply to Be a Mentor
• HOPE Training Modules
• HOPE for Cadets
• AAC in Action
• Celebration of Excellence
• C&I Graduate Research Symposium
• Invited Sessions
• Visiting Bloomington
• Science Education Research Symposium
• Convocation
• Diggs Symposium
• Virtual Events
• Advisory Committee
• Education Law Resources

School of Education

• Doctoral Programs

Ph.D. in Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative research methodology, (formerly ph.d. in inquiry methodology).

This unique program enables students to focus on quantitative research, qualitative research, or an integrated program of study.

The flexible curriculum enables you to delve deeply into your chosen area of interest, from statistical modeling to ethnography, from discourse and narrative analysis to psychometrics and assessment.

Yet our program is rigorous enough to ensure that all graduates are able to meaningfully contribute to the study of social and behavioral research.

Application Deadlines

Admission requirements.

The Graduate Studies Office will accept unofficial transcripts and self-reported test scores for admission reviews. Any admission made with these documents would be conditioned on receipt of official documents, which should be provided as soon as possible.

Note: If you are currently enrolled or have applied in the past year, you are eligible for a reduced application fee of $35. Learn more »

• Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution
• Minimum undergraduate GPA of 2.75 out of 4.00
• Personal statement
• Resume (required from international students only)
• Three letters of recommendation
• Minimum 79 TOEFL score or minimum 6.5 IELTS score or minimum 115 Duolingo score (international students only)

Learn more about how to apply

Program Requirements

• Ph.D. in Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodology – (formerly Ph.D. in Inquiry Methodology) Program Requirements

Per credit hour

*Does not include fees, which will vary depending on the number of credits enrolled. Find more information and calculate your expected costs at Student Central .

• Learn about the variety of fellowships and assistantships available to graduate students.
• Visit Student Central for information about financial assistance.
• Consult your employer about the availability of tuition reimbursement or tuition assistance programs.
• Active duty military, veterans, and military families should visit the Center for Veteran and Military Students to take full advantage of available financial assistance and educational benefits.

Qualifying Examination

At the completion of course work and before the dissertation, doctoral students specializing in Inquiry Methodology will need to pass a qualifying exam in the form of portfolio of work and an oral examination. This examination is tailored to the student's program of study. All students with a minor in education must also take a minor qualifying examination. Some departments outside of the School of Education waive the minor qualifying examination, under certain conditions.

• Request info
• Graduate Student Portal

As a student you will have the opportunity to focus on methodology through theory and practice that cuts across a divide in qualitative and quantitative methods.

We are dedicated to advancing the understanding of social inquiry, especially with respect to the field of education, and we imagine these possibilities to be necessarily inclusive of methods typically disenfranchised from one another.

This 90-credit hour degree program requires students to spend at least two consecutive semesters on campus. Up to 30 credit hours may be transferred from another institution.

A 12-credit hour minor is also available to doctoral students majoring in other disciplines.

David Rutkowski ED 4234 drutkows@iu.edu (812) 856-8384

Start your life-changing journey

Additional links and resources.

• From the Dean
• Annual Report
• International Engagement
• Accreditation
• Measures of Success
• Emergency Preparedness
• Departments
• Instructor Resources
• Undergraduate
• Community of Teachers
• Research Initiatives
• Funding Opportunities
• Visiting International Scholars
• Undergraduate Portal
• Graduate Portal
• Academic Resources
• Career Connections
• Research Help
• Maker Education
• Youth Programs
• Award Programs
• CHG Counseling Services
• Staff Council
• Visit the School
• Alumni Spotlights
• Distinguished Alumni Award

Indiana University Bloomington School of Education

SOE Knowledge Base

SOE Intranet (Legacy)

• Graduate Programs
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Degree Programs >

PHD, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methodologies

If you have a deep interest in the methodological, theoretical, and ethical procedures and challenges inherent to social science research and evaluation, this is a program for you. Our graduates contribute to the field of qualitative inquiry.

Degree Type: Doctoral

Degree Program Code: PHD_QREM

Degree Program Summary:

The organization of the QREM degree program recognizes the wide variety of specialties in which students might develop research agendas. Therefore, our mission is to build students’ capacities to contribute methodological expertise to collaborative research efforts through real-world opportunities in which they develop and practice the skills needed in their area of specialization. Through their research in a variety of substantive fields, students will contribute to the development of innovative theory and methods employed in research and evaluation methodologies. As a result of the QREM program experience, students will a have broad knowledge of research methods along with specific expertise in a focused methodology, which they can use to pursue careers as research methodologists and evaluation specialists in higher education as well as corporate and non-profit agencies.

Program of Study: Ph.D. in Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies

• Core Coursework – 18 hours
• Area of Specialization – 12 hours
• Research Seminar – 3 hours
• Elective Coursework in Research Methods – 12 hours
• Cognate in Area of Interest – 9 hours
• Doctoral Directed Study Hours – Minimum of 3 hours
• Dissertation Hours – Minimum of 3 hours
• Total – 60 hours

The purpose of the Ph.D. degree program in Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies (QREM) at The University of Georgia is to prepare researchers and research methodologists to study and develop methods for conducting empirical and conceptual social science research in education and other social science fields. The graduate experience in the QREM degree program consists of focused coursework and individual supervised research with faculty mentors leading to expertise in one of two methodological areas of emphasis: (1) qualitative research; or (2) program evaluation. All students are expected to complete an initial study of the traditions commonly used in the social sciences—qualitative, quantitative, mixed, and evaluation methods. Additionally, students study the philosophical, theoretical, and conceptual aspects of an array of research designs through a course entitled “The History and Philosophy of Social Science Research Methods,” as well as develop proficiency in writing for a variety of audiences in “Writing and Reporting Academic Research and Evaluation.”

Locations Offered:

Athens (Main Campus)

College / School:

Mary Frances Early College of Education

110 Carlton Street Athens, GA 30602

706-542-6446

Department:

Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy

Graduate Coordinator(s):

Diann Jones

Search for another degree

Find your graduate program.

Offering 200+ degrees, certificates and programs of study, we’ll help you get started on your graduate journey.

 or 

Search by keyword, program of study, department or area of interest

Interested in earning both a bachelor’s & master’s degree in five years or less?

Learn more about Double Dawgs .

Unlocking potential. Building futures.

Apply Today

The Graduate School Brooks Hall 310 Herty Drive Athens, GA 30602 706.542.1739

• Administration
• Graduate Bulletin
• Strategic Plan
• Virtual Tour
• Request Information
• Requirements
• Application Fee
• Check Status
• UGA Main Campus
• UGA Gwinnett
• UGA Griffin
• UGA Atlanta-Buckhead

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

77k Accesses

28 Citations

71 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Hadiqa Ahmad, Muhammad Yaqub & Seung Hwan Lee

Research Methodology: An Introduction

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

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

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research

Renée Spencer, School of Social Work, Boston University

Julia M. Pryce, School of Social Work, Loyola University, Chicago

Jill Walsh, Department of Sociology, Boston University

• Published: 04 August 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter reviews some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and includes some historical background for each. Taking a “big picture” view, the chapter discusses post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory and offers a brief history of these approaches; considers the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and details some of their distinguishing features. In the last section, attention is turned to the future, identifying three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as it moves forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches.

Much ink has been spilled in what have been called the “paradigm wars,” or battles within psychology and related disciples about how we know—and who judges—what is real. Efforts to establish the legitimacy of qualitative research have often taken the form of vociferous arguments for the merits of qualitative approaches, typically cast in terms of the contrasts between these and the more widely accepted quantitative approaches to knowledge production. More recently, even as the push toward evidence-based practice gains momentum and predictably lists the field toward greater uniformity in acceptable approaches to establishing what can be deemed credible evidence, qualitative approaches have continued to strengthen in presence and broaden in reach. Once a seeming fledging movement, despite its long but sometimes forgotten history ( Wertz et al., 2011 ), qualitative research in psychology appears to have come of age. This maturity is reflected in the wide variety of philosophical approaches to qualitative research that have now firmly taken root.

In this chapter, we review some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and include some historical background for each. Here, we offer a “big picture” view and leave it to other chapters in this section (on interpretive, critical, feminist, and indigenous approaches) to take a more fine-grained look at some of the particular fields of thought within these. Described by Denzin and Lincoln (2013) as “a field of inquiry in its own right” (p. 5), qualitative research cuts across disciplines and is represented in many areas of scholarship. We focus here on psychology, but recognize the substantial work done in related fields such as sociology, anthropology, social work, social policy, humanities, and the health sciences, in particular nursing. We cannot possibly do justice to the work that has been done in this arena in this one chapter. Entire volumes (c.f., Denzin & Lincoln, 2013 ) are devoted to introducing researchers to these issues. We offer here what we hope is a concise and practical overview of some of the major philosophical assumptions that undergird qualitative research and shape its implementation today.

Once dominated by quantitative methods anchored in positivistic and post-positivistic research paradigms, a greater balance in the use of methodological and philosophical approaches is now being utilized in psychological research ( Ponterotto, 2005 ; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002 ). The importance of qualitative research has long been justified by many on the basis of Dilthey’s argument that the distinctive natures of natural science and human science called for different approaches: “We explain nature, but we understand psychic life” (1894/1977, p. 27; as cited in Wertz et al., p. 80). Today, qualitative methods are viewed as being particularly well-suited to addressing some of our most pressing issues and concerns, such as the influence of culture on psychological development and its role in psychological interventions ( Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2010 ). The rise of participatory action research (PAR), with its emphasis on social change and the empowerment of community participants ( Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005 ), has also required employing a range of qualitative approaches (i.e., focus groups, interviews, participant observation, photo-voice, and storytelling) to collecting data that contribute to the development of the kind of deeper understandings of the experiences of the participants needed to effect meaningful change.

The diversity of qualitative approaches can be dizzying and makes agreement about their appropriate use, in what forms, and according to what standards difficult, if not impossible. It can be challenging for “insiders” to navigate these issues, let alone the novice researcher wading into this terrain. Seemingly simple questions about sample size and composition or the specific steps one should take in data analysis and how to achieve reliable findings can provoke lengthy discussion and even heated debates, with researchers take opposing positions and rooting their justification for these in foundational principles of qualitative research. Even more maddening for some, such questions may simply yield a repeated singular and highly unsatisfying response of “it depends.”

This seeming confusion can stem in part from differences in the purpose or aims of the research and in beliefs associated with core philosophies of science embedded within the varying approaches, namely ontology, epistemology, and axiology ( Creswell, 2007 ; Hays & Singh, 2012 ; Ponterotto, 2005 ). At its core, psychological research may be carried out with markedly distinct purposes, such as explaining and predicting aspects of the human experience, increasing our understanding of the lived experiences of different groups of people, or critiquing and changing the current conditions within which we live and strive to grow ( Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2013 ). These different aims may also be carried out using approaches to research that rest on differing foundational assumptions about the nature of our world (ontology) and our knowledge about it (epistemology), as well as the role of values in the process of knowledge production (axiology), that are conceptualized by Hays and Singh (2012) as falling along separate continuums of beliefs.

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality. Within the context of qualitative research, ontology is discussed in terms of beliefs about the existence of some “universal truth” and about objectivity. At one end of the spectrum is a belief that reality is objective and that there are universal truths about reality that can be known. At the other end is a belief that reality is subjective and contextual, and a universal understanding of psychological experiences cannot be obtained because they must always be understood within the contexts within which they are embedded ( Hays & Singh, 2012 ). The crux of these viewpoints is also represented in the terms “emic” and “etic,” which are often used in anthropology and cultural psychology. These terms have been used to capture the distinction between experience-near understandings of culture and human experience, or what an insider within a local context would recognize and resonate with, and more experience-distant conceptualizations or abstractions about cultural processes (e.g., Geertz, 1983 ). Etic can also be thought of as generalizations about human behavior that are universally true and emic as those that are contextually situated and not generalizable, such as local customs ( Ponterotto, 2005 ).

Epistemology is the study of the process of knowing or “how we know what we know” (Guba & Lincoln, 2008; Ponterotto, 2005 ). It is concerned with how we gain knowledge of what exists and the relationship between the knower—in this case the researcher—and the world. The researcher and research participant may be considered independent of one another. In this view, researchers can use rigorous, systematic approaches to studying participants objectively or without researcher bias. This results in much attention being paid to rigor in research, particularly in the form of strict adherence to generally accepted systematic approaches to enhancing objectivity and reducing researcher bias. On the other side of the continuum is an understanding of knowledge as being actively constructed by the researcher and participant, who exert mutual influence on one another. Rather than removing or guarding against researcher bias, the dynamic interaction between the researcher and participant is viewed as central to capturing the inherently contextualized experiences of the participant. Issues of rigor remain but take on different meanings and forms. The goal here is not to eliminate bias—because that would be futile—but rather to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings by including and documenting multiple perspectives on the focus of the inquiry. In some cases, this might mean demonstrating that the researcher became immersed enough in the participants’ experiences so as to credibly represent and interpret them. In others, this might involve triangulating the data sources and/or the investigators.

Axiology is concerned with how values and assumptions of the researcher influence the scientific process, as well as what actions the researcher takes with the research produced ( Lincoln et al., 2013 ). What place do the emotions, expectations, and values of the researcher have in the research process? Should systematic steps be taken to ensure that the process is kept free of these so that they do not influence the participants and the results? Or is such a pursuit futile and the best a researcher can do is identify, describe, or even attempt to “bracket” ( Wertz, 2011 ) his or her values? Much qualitative research today rests on the assumption that research is “radically relational” and is inevitably shaped, and even intentionally informed, by the researcher’s orientation, values, and personal qualities ( Wertz et al., 2011 , p. 84). In research that seeks to change the status quo with regard to the unequal distribution of power and resources, such as in PAR, the researcher’s experience is central to the process and may be key to achieving the intended outcomes of the research ( Ponterotto, 2005 ). With regard to action, the positions range from researcher as distant observer of the study participants to researcher as change agent who is deliberately striving to achieve social justice through the work produced.

In some cases, the assumptions of a researcher may align more neatly along one side of these continuums. For example, a feminist researcher may hold that there are multiple truths and that knowledge is constructed in relationship with study participants, with the values and assumptions of the researcher integral to the construction of this knowledge. In others, the assumptions may be more mixed, such as a researcher who endorses a constructivist view of reality but views researcher reflexivity as less central to the research process. When these differing ontological, epistemological, and axiological stances go unacknowledged, the differences among qualitative approaches can seem as vast as those between quantitative and qualitative methods. As Camic, Rhodes, and Yardley (2003) , among many, have argued, the principle that should unify us is the need for coherence between the nature of our questions and the methodological and philosophical approach taken to answering them.

In the next sections, we review the following major overarching philosophical approaches that guide and structure qualitative research: post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory. We offer a brief history of each of the approaches; consider the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and detail some of the distinguishing features while also attempting to capture some of the diversity within them. We also touch on some prominent applications of these approaches to qualitative research in psychology. We recognize that these approaches have been grouped and defined in varying ways and that they defy this sort of tidy categorization. Still, we draw some lines here in an effort to highlight distinctive ideas within each. Also included are discussions of applications of each of the approaches.

Philosophical Approaches

Post-positivism.

Post-positivism grew out of the positivist view of science, and together these have dominated research in psychology for much of the field’s history ( Packer, 2011 ). Positivism rests on the ontological assumption that some objective truth or reality exists that is independent of our beliefs and constructions and can be ascertained through direct observation and experience. The efforts of science, thus, are put toward establishing universal laws of nature and, within psychology, universal laws of human development and experience. The attainment of this knowledge and our confidence in it depends on following systematic procedures through which claims about truth can be verified. Hypothesis generation and testing using valid measures of operationally defined variables are primary tools, and the goal is to be able, with confidence, to generalize the knowledge obtained to some larger general population. Post-positivism introduces the idea that hypotheses can never actually be proven beyond any doubt and that theory should tested in order to be falsified as well as verified. Issues of validity and reliability are of central importance in research within this paradigm, as are considerations of credible alternative hypotheses to explain the phenomenon being studied.

Post-positivism is rooted in logical positivism, a term coined by a group of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers in the early 1900s known as the Vienna Circle. Building on the “positive philosophy” of Auguste Comte, but also emphasizing the importance of formal logic in scientific investigation, these thinkers determined that science required a systematic way of organizing our direct observations of experience and sought to inductively build laws of the natural world based on the construction of meaningful and unambiguous logical statements ( Packer, 2011 ). Only statements of fact that could be verified in some way or tested empirically were considered to be meaningful in the scientific endeavor.

Karl Popper (1934/1959 ) objected to the idea that this kind of inductive construction and confirmation of factual, logical statements that were purportedly free from personal and theoretical bias could lead to certainty about the natural world. Instead, he argued that the laws of science had to be built through a process of falsification or testing of hypotheses. He argued that data disproving hypotheses are more definitive than those supporting them, as in any given study there is always the risk that the data gathered do not accurately or fully represent the real world being studied. The disconfirming case or cases may simply have not made it into the sample drawn for study.

Foundational Assumptions

Post-positivism retains the belief in an observable external reality and the existence of universal truths but contends that a fully accurate representation of them can never be achieved with certitude ( Popper, 1934/1959 ). Although things exist beyond our experience of them, it is recognized that our knowledge of this world is socially constructed. Bias is unavoidable. All observations are fallible because they are inherently laden with our individual and cultural biases. Although we can never get to the truth with any certainty, post-positivists contend that we should continually strive to come as close as we possibly can. Because all measurement is biased and introduces error, issues of reliability and validity are paramount. Great attention is paid to reducing or controlling for bias through the design of the research and the use of clearly defined techniques such as controls groups and multiple forms of measurement or triangulation. This attempt to remove or at least reduce bias extends to the subjectivity of the researcher as well as to the intentions of the research. The researcher is to remain as neutral as possible throughout the research process and should not engage in research in the service of advocacy for any particular position within their field.

From a post-positivist perspective, the existence of multiple worldviews does not extend into a belief in complete relativism and an incommensurability of perspectives—the belief that our differences in experiences and culture mean that we can never understand each other. Whereas we may never achieve objectivity in the true sense of the word, we can employ systematic ways of checking our biases both individually and collectively through engaging in the scientific enterprise within a community of people who critically review one another’s work.

Implications for Research Methods

Research rooted in post-positivism aims to explain psychological phenomenon by identifying factors that predict particular outcomes and the relationships between them. A priori theory about how things are related is used to guide the research, which then seeks to verify or falsify these theory-based ideas. Having confidence in the findings from such research rests on the rigor with which systematic steps in the research process are employed. Multiple levels of data analysis and taking steps to ensure validity contribute to the rigor of the research, and the results of these studies are typically written in the form of scientific reports similar in structure to that used for the reporting of quantitative studies.

Application

Grounded theory , a now widely used approach to qualitative research, as traditionally constructed aligns most closely with positivistic and post-positivistic assumptions ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2010 ). It was first developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in response to what they considered to be an overemphasis on hypothesis testing and the verification of theory in sociological research. They argued that the work of theory generation could not be complete and that all human experience was unlikely to be captured and accounted for by the existing grand theories of the time. They put forth grounded theory as a systematic approach to qualitative data collection and analysis to be carried out with the explicit purpose of discovering new theory from data or building new theory from the ground up, rather than by logical deductions from a priori assumptions. Although grounded theory turned the process of scientific inquiry in the post-positivist tradition on its head by beginning with the collection of data to use to ultimately build theory rather than collecting data to prove or disprove existing theory, the foundational assumptions on which traditional grounded theory rests are largely rooted in post-positivism. That said, constructive approaches to grounded theory have also been articulated and widely implemented (e.g., Charmaz, 2006 ), and others have argued that grounded theory techniques can be implemented using a variety of philosophical approaches ( Birks & Mills, 2011 ).

Traditional grounded theory “accepts that there is an external world that can be described, analyzed, explained and predicted: truth, but with a small t ” ( Charmaz, 2000 , p. 524). Part of the intent of grounded theory was to codify qualitative research methods and put forth a systematic set of explicit strategies for carrying out the research process, with the assumption being that following a systematic set of methods would lead to the discovery of real phenomena and the development of verifiable “theories” of them ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). Such work, however, requires getting out into the field to collect rich data on which to build these theories. Some of the defining features of a grounded theory approach are (a) simultaneous data collection and analysis, (b) the development of codes from the data rather than from theory, (c) constant comparison of data at all levels of the data collection and analytic process, (d) theoretical sampling to serve the purpose of theory generation rather than representativeness of the sample, and (e) memo writing to define and elaborate on emerging categories and the relationships among them ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ).

Social Constructionism

The tenets of the discipline throughout the twentieth century tended to place social constructionism at the opposite pole of experimental social psychology ( Jost & Kruglanski 2002 ), with the idea being that work in social psychology should fall on either end of the spectrum: you either do quantitative experiments or you engage in qualitative studies that are undergirded by a social constructionist paradigm. Although the two extremes have begun to meet in the middle in recent years, it is important to examine the role that the social constructionist perspective has played in shaping our thinking and work in the field of psychological research.

The notion of social construction first gained popularity in the United States after the publication of Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) seminal book, The Social Construction of Reality. Relying on the work of Schutz, Berger and Luckmann argued that all of our understandings and knowledge are socially constructed. The idea is that we create our own reality through social interactions, relationships, and experiences. From the ontological perspective, reality is context- and socially relative, and therefore many realities can exist simultaneously ( Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ; Gergen, 1996 ). If our reality is constructed, then, too, our knowledge and meanings are derived from social interactions. Individuals hold them in their minds, but the epistemological notion of reality and meanings are not individual in nature but instead are constantly “negotiating meaning” ( Gergen, 1996 ).

This has significant implications for both how we analyze the findings from past research in the field as well as how we shape future research projects. As Gergen (1996) states, “research findings don’t have any meaning until they are interpreted” and interpretations “result from a process of negotiating meaning in the community (119).” The data do not reveal anything in or of themselves; instead, it is the way that psychologists utilize and interpret the data that reveals meaning. But again, it is not a truth that is revealed, or rather it is a truth, the truth that the researcher, given his or her experiences and knowledge, created while interacting with the social environment. Diverse and influential work, such as Milgram’s (1974) experiment and Burr’s (1998) work on the social construction of gender, illustrates the power of social interactions to frame and influence our understandings and realities.

Perhaps most importantly for our purposes, social construction highlights the social creation of identity. Identity creation and maintenance is work that we are constantly engaged in as individuals; we use Goffmanian (1955) performances and props to test how others interpret our identities, which then impacts how we think of our identity. This is also true for the related notion of self-worth. In an interesting study examining the social construction of identity among the homeless in Austin, Texas, Snow and Anderson (1987) found that there can be both a social identity (the identity that society gives you) and a personal identity (the identity you hold in your mind). Traditionally, these would be thought to align, but through a social construction approach Snow and Anderson (1987) argued that there are cases in which people cannot easily reconcile the public and personal. This has obvious implications for the field of social psychology and identity research.

Social construction, as defined by Berger and Luckmann (1966) , suggests that reality is constantly in flux as it is negotiated and renegotiated through our experiences social worlds. From this core idea, other branches of social construction, such as symbolic interaction, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology, have evolved. Because they all fall under the social construction umbrella, it can be difficult at times to determine their differences. How does symbolic interactionism really differ from phenomenology, for example? The following sections lay out these three offshoots of social construction and attempt to present both their historical precedence as well as their current engagement with the discipline.

Symbolic Interactionism

The symbolic interactionist approach was first developed in the early 1900s by George Herbert Mead (1913) at the University of Chicago. He was a member of the eminent group of sociologists (loosely termed at the time because he also taught philosophy) working as part of the Chicago School in the early to mid-1900s. The Chicago School came to be known in particular for the development of the symbolic interactionist approach to studying daily life. Mead argued that society and all its component parts—structures, interactions, and meanings—are developed through social interactions, thus macroanalyses can and should really be reduced to their smaller microlevel interactions. The theory was popular during the time of the Chicago School and was then expanded and adapted by Herbert Blumer in 1960s. Blumer did not like the emphasis placed on macrolevel structures that dominated most of the sociological research at the time and thought that symbolic interactionism offered an alternative theoretical framework. Blumer’s work (1969) was resurrected as an empirical framework in the 1980s, and its popularity has ebbed and flowed since. One of the most renowned sociologists utilizing symbolic interactionism today is Sheldon Stryker at Indiana University.

Although Mead did not refer to the theory as such, symbolic interactionism is based on the overarching premise that all aspects of society are socially constituted. From macrolevel power structures to microlevel daily interactions, all are created through social interactions at various levels. Embedded in this perspective is the notion that meanings (about these power structures, interactions, etc.) are derived from social interactions. For both Mead and Blumer, the unit of analysis is the individual, not society or institutions. They were both reacting against the notion that social structures (i.e., socioeconomic stats) explain outcomes. Structures, according to symbolic interactionists, are just groups of people repeatedly engaged in interaction.

Our social interactions lead us to develop “shared meanings” ( Sandstrom, Martin, & Fine, 2006 ); through our interactions with others, we take on common definitions of emotions, experiences, and ways of acting. Thus, for example, gender norms may be taught, both consciously and unconsciously from early childhood; in this way, a female understands what it “means” to be a woman in her society without ever being explicitly told. A girl does not learn this in a bubble; rather, it is through her social interactions with others that she comes to understand what constitutes appropriate behavior, dress, appearance, and the like. She learns this through her experiences and the responses she gets from others.

Symbolic interactionism “stresses that people create, negotiate, and change social meanings through the process of interaction” ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 , p. 1). The key point here, for Blumer and others, is that meanings are constantly evolving. So, to follow the example just mentioned, our understanding of gender is not a fixed fact (because it might be different in different regions, religions, and time periods) but the result of previously experienced gendered interactions in our past. We take our previous interactions with us and apply them to the next interaction. Interactions, even with people we have just met, are not completely insulated events. Rather, each person brings to the interaction all of his or her previous interactions and meanings. Thus, a man and a woman in conversation will bring to this exchange all of their previously held ideas about femininity and masculinity, which they will use as a guide for navigating this new interaction. And of ultimate importance is Goffman’s (1959) notion of the feedback loop; you act based on your prior understandings, receive feedback from your new partner, and then take this new feedback with you into your future interactions. As this process continues, you may alter your meanings, and potentially your behavior, over time. It is a process, not a set plan.

Because behavior and meaning are social constituted, so, too, is the self. Most symbolic interactionists would argue that there is no core/true individual identity. Rather, we engage in identity work in which take on different identities to manage the diversity of our social interactions. So, for example, in the classroom setting, one takes on the role of either professor or student. Out of this context, we may take on an entirely different identity, such as mother. None of these identities represents our “true self,” but rather they are all appropriate context-specific roles. We base these roles on what Goffman (1959) called “the generalized other” or the group/people we interact with. So, we base our mothering role on our interactions with our children, our experiences with our own parents, friends, and media/cultural influences. As the “generalized other” changes, so do our identities. As a result of the primacy of social interactions, Mead’s original theory is a very fluid one. Meanings are iterative because they are informed by our ongoing interactions.

The legacy of symbolic interactionism for research in psychology is an important one. First, the notion that all behaviors, from internal thoughts to outward interactions, are socially constituted has an impact on the psychological discourse. For researchers, this means that the participant cannot be looked at simply as an individual but rather as an individual in the social context. Thus, a person’s thoughts and judgments are not solely the product of his or her own mind, but rather of his or her understandings based on social interactions ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 ). And, additionally, one of the byproducts of social interaction is feedback about ourselves; we internalize others’ perceptions of us, which can in turn influence our self-concept ( Cook & Douglas 1998 ). This has significant implications for any researchers studying mental health because it means that the mind is no longer a solely internal, individual unit of analysis. Our thoughts, ideas, hopes, and fears are all rooted in the social world and therefore have both social causes and consequences. Therefore, the “social act” should be the unit of analysis ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 ).

Symbolic interactionists also highlight individual agency to form and change the world around us. Individuals “designate meanings, define situations and plan lines of action. In so doing, they actively construct the reality of their environment and exercise a measure of control over it” ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 , p. 6). We do this through the process of interacting, reflecting on, and evaluating interactions, and acting. This process is dynamic and, at least to some degree, controlled by the individual. There is no right or set meaning or type of interaction. Instead, we each create our own realities based on our understandings and meanings. Thus, it is still possible for two people to react to the same interaction very differently because each will bring his or her own history of social interactions and meanings to this experience.

Rooting the theory in individual meanings and experiences has implications for the types of research methods symbolic interactionists will utilize. The most commonly utilized approaches are ethnography, grounded theory, and narrative analysis because these methods allow the themes to emerge from the data, thereby preserving the individual experiences and realities. These methods more readily address the question of how people make meaning out of experiences in their lives and do not allow the researcher’s assumptions and own set of meanings to dictate the findings that emerge from the data.

The border between social psychology and sociology is often blurred by researchers in both disciplines’ use of symbolic interactionism. In particular, Stryker (1987) argued that the movement in psychology away from behaviorism and toward a value placed on subjective experience is the result of the use of symbolic interactionism as a lens through which to examine psychological research. Thus, it is fair to say that the scope of symbolic interactionism’s influence is far reaching within the field. One interesting study that took a symbolic interactionist approach is Ponticelli’s (1999) study of former lesbians who, due to religious involvement in an ministry that does not acknowledge homosexuality, must reframe their sexual identities to align with their newly acquired religious beliefs. Ponticelli’s research method involved eight months of participant observations, interviews, and material analysis, and her goal was to understand the ways that the ex-lesbians in her study construct a narrative of their sexuality. Symbolic interactionism lends itself well to this kind of study because it brings participants’ own understandings and narratives to the study rather than the researcher’s personal assessment of the participants’ stories. Additionally, Ponticelli’s study also incorporates a symbolic interactionist approach in its attempt to focus on the ways that meaning is created and adjusted over time.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology was first established by Edmund Husserl in the early 1900s. It has subsequently been used as an approach within psychology as well as in other disciplines in the social sciences. Husserl’s original goal was to find a way to conduct objective scientific analysis of subjective topics, such as emotion. Phenomenology, along with the ideologically similar symbolic interactionism, has been an important philosophical approach underpinning much of psychological research. In particular, phenomenology has influenced the Duquesne School as well as the experimental approaches utilized in psychological research. In spite of the influence of phenomenology within the field of psychology, over time, its theoretical premise has been challenged by some of the field’s giants: James, Skinner, and Watson have at various times all challenged phenomenology and advocated a more scientific approach to the discipline of psychology. The debate continues today, and many researchers still question what constitutes phenomenological research as well as its merits as a philosophical framework.

Phenomenology is rooted in the notion that all of our knowledge and understanding of the world comes from our experiences ( Hein & Austin, 2001 ). At their core, there are significant similarities between phenomenology and symbolic interactionism in that both focus on the ways our engagement with society affects our worldviews. However, whereas symbolic interactionism focuses on the ways that social interactions affect our meaning, phenomenology takes the broader aim of studying experiences (phenomena). But, like symbolic interactionism, the focus is not on the events themselves, but rather on the ways in which we experience things and the meanings these experiences create for us. As Kockelmans (1973) writes, it is “bringing to light the usually hidden meanings which motivate the concrete modes of man’s orientation toward the world” (p. 274). As such, those who utilize the phenomenological approach seek to make explicit the “taken-for-grantedness” assumptions that guide our experiences ( Hein & Austin, 2001 , p. 6). In essence, there is no objective reality, but rather it is our experiences and our perceptions of these experiences (i.e., our lived experiences) that are our reality. Given that the meanings we create from our experiences are largely based on the social context ( Smith, 2011 ), there is a clear link to symbolic interactionism.

Additionally, phenomenologists believe that behavior is a reflection of our previous experiences; we act in response to our temporal and spatial memories of past experiences or, as Keen (1975) writes, “behavior is an expression of being in the world” (p. 27). Thinking about behavior as a product of our past experiences forces us to consider action and individual agency as embedded in a broader social context. Related to this question of behavior is the notion of intentionality; namely, the idea that every experience is in response to or connected to some past experience. Thus, attempting to examine the experience as “in the moment” is, from a phenomenological perspective, missing the unique understandings the individual brought to the current experience.

As a research method, phenomenology involves studying how we make sense of our experiences or “participant perspectives” ( Bogdan & Biklen, 1998 , p. 26). Therefore, as researchers, we cannot assume that we know what meanings people make of certain events. For example, even though we may think the standard response is to be sad after the death of a parent, we cannot presume that a participant in our study feels this or any other emotion. The job of the researcher is to uncover what it is people take for granted (i.e., what they might not even think to tell us in an interview and what we might not think to ask because we assume they think like we do). To do this, the researcher must first come to understand the assumptions and biases he or she brings to the research. Underlying phenomenological research is the notion of bracketing assumptions, which is the idea that, before we can conduct any analysis of our data, we must first explore our own biases or the “taken-for-grantedness” ( Hein & Austin, 2001 , p. 6) that make up our unique perspectives. Of course, there is no way we, as researchers, can operate outside of our assumptions and experiences. However, the self-reflection for which phenomenologists advocate does at least charge the researcher with keeping these biases in mind when conducting analysis.

Approaching a research question with the assumption that experience forms the basis for behavior and understanding fundamentally lends itself to certain research methods. In particular, utilizing methods that emphasize gathering data on lived experience from the participant’s perspective is essential. To that end, methods such as ethnomethodology, ethnography, and narrative analysis are particularly relevant for researchers utilizing the phenomenological approach because all of these methods focus on uncovering the meanings individuals give to their experiences.

A great deal of the research in psychotherapy is rooted in the phenomenological approach because many scholars in this field see as their goal “discovering psychological meanings by identifying the essential psychological structure of an interviewee’s description of an experience” ( Camic et al., 2003 , p. 8). A concrete example of this comes from Carl Rogers’s client-centered therapy (1951). Rogers found that many of his patients struggled not with what actually happened—that is, the “in the moment” reality—but with their perceptions and feelings about what happened. As a result, therapy must be targeted to address the individual’s set of perceptions and understandings. To follow up with the example of a person dealing with the death of a parent, a therapist cannot follow a preset protocol for helping the client because each patient’s experiences and feelings about death will be different.

From the perspective of social psychology, the phenomenological approach has implications for how we conduct and think about research on identity. In its most general sense, phenomenology de-emphasizes the self as a unique individual, which has implications for the types of research questions we ask, as well as for the methods we utilize. A phenomenological study of identity allows for open-ended questions that allow participants to present, through the construction of a narrative for example, what identity means to them and how it functions in their lives. This is especially relevant for factors such as gender, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which, depending on our context, can constrain or enhance our experiences and interactions. One example of this type of work is Friedman, Friedlander, and Blustein’s (2005) study that used a phenomenological approach to develop an understanding of how Jews construct their collective religious and ethnic identity as a highly assimilated but still distinct population within the United States.

A well-defined method with some roots in phenomenology (among other approaches) is consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill, Knox, Thompson, Williams, Hess, & Ladany, 2005 ; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997 ). It is a method for interview research that has been used in numerous studies in psychology, especially within counseling psychology. Consensual qualitative research is actually constructivist in ontology, in that it assumes multiple realities, and in epistemology because the researcher experience matters and informs interview question development. However, it also has post-positivistic leanings, with its emphasis on consensus among a team of researchers in the construction of findings, close adherence to a systematic approach, and interest in generalization and ( Hill et al., 2005 ).

In CQR, consistent data are collected across participants through semistructured interviews and then analyzed by multiple “judges” who must come to a consensus about the meaning of the data. At least one “auditor” also checks the “primary team of judges” to work against the potential for groupthink. Data analysis is carried out in three steps. First, participant responses to the open-ended interview questions are divided into domains or topic areas. Then, core ideas, which are abstracts or brief “summaries of the data that capture the essence of what was said in fewer words and with greater clarity” are constructed within each domain for each individual case ( Hill et al., 2005 , p. 200). Finally, cross-case analysis is carried out by developing categories that describe the common themes reflected in the core ideas within domains across cases.

Consensus is at the core of the CQR method, with the assumption being that consideration of multiple perspectives brings us closer in our approximation of the “truth” and reduces the influence of researcher bias ( Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997 ). Using teams of three to five analysts, coders first look at the data independently and then come together to discuss their ideas until consensus about the single best representation of the data is reached. The goal here is not what is typically thought of as interrater reliability, wherein preagreement about how to code data is established and then carried out with the goal of achieving the highest levels of accuracy in agreement in coding. Rather, it is expected, and even hoped, that team members will begin with different ideas about the data so that the final product reflects and integrates multiple perspectives and is less fraught with individual bias. The potential for groupthink is minimized through the use of one or two additional team members who serve as auditors to review and check the primary team’s interpretations and judgments. The auditors review the work of the primary team once the core ideas for each domain have been established consensually and then again when the cross-case categories have been determined. At each of these stages, the auditors review the raw material and provide comments back to the primary team who must then carefully consider each comment and determine through discussion whether to accept or reject each one.

Critical Theory

Critical theory as an approach represents a key postmodern paradigm and offers alternatives to the postmodernist and constructivist lenses. In the context of research, the application of critical theory emphasizes the ways by which the values of the researcher and those studied impact the social world. This point of view contributes to a larger shift in research over the past several decades ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 ), one that privileges meaning and requires a rethinking of knowledge ( Goodman & Fisher, 1995 ).

Critical theory has had many distinct historical phases that cross several generations. The birth of this paradigm is considered to have taken place through the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main during 1929–1930. During this time, the arrival of the “Frankfurt School” philosophers and social theorists ( Creswell, 2007 ), including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, marked an idealistic, utopian vision that stretched beyond the more customary “positivist” tradition of the time. This emergence offered criticism to the status, structure, and goal of the traditional social sciences ( Adorno et al., 1969 ). The German philosophers and social theorists of the Frankfurt School were influenced by the barbarism of World War I and what was perceived as the inhumanity of post-war capitalism so widespread in Europe at the time. During World War II, several key contributors to the School moved to the United States in an effort to escape the war. Once in the United States, these thinkers were struck by the gulf between the stated progressive agenda within the United States and the very real differences between races and social classes present, in large part due to discrimination ( Ponterotto, 2005 ).

According to these theorists, “critical” theory may be distinguished from “traditional” theories to the extent that it seeks human emancipation and a disruption of the status quo. Ontologically, critical theory challenges the idea that reality is natural and objective because reality is shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender-based forces into social structures. Instead, critical theorists assume that reality can only come to be known through a subjective frame and as shaped by values and mediated by power relations that are socially and historically constituted.

More recently, Jurgen Habermas’s (1988 ; 1990 ) work on communicative reason and linguistic intersubjectivity has represented iconic work in critical theory in the more modern era. Habermas’s work has enabled strategies of community building and social movements based on his work in communication. This work has not taken place without scrutiny, however. Theorists such as Nikolas Kompridis have opposed some of Habermas’s ideas ( Kompridis, 2006 ), claiming that these recent approaches have undermined the original aims of social change espoused by critical theory, particularly in terms of the critique of modern capitalism.

According to Horkheimer, a critical theory is adequate only if it is explanatory, practical, and normative (1972). In other words, it has to address what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, provide clear norms for criticism, and identify practical goals for social transformation. The orientation of this theory is toward transformation, traditionally of capitalism into a “real democracy”.

Foundation ideals are based on a fundamental struggle for equality and social justice. Knowledge is used to emancipate the oppressed, and “validity is found when research creates action” ( Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011 , p. 114). Given this definition, a number of “critical theories” have been developed to demonstrate differences in power in the areas of gender, race and ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and disabilities, many of which have emerged in connection with the social movements associated with these areas, particularly in the United States. In short, a critical theory provides the basis and groundwork for research aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom.

Critical theory by and large rejects the assumption that a scientific or objective basis of criticism needs to be grounded in a grand theory. Rather, epistemologically, critical theory privileges agents’ own knowledge and understandings, with an assumption that these understandings can be a basis for social criticism in themselves. In other words, theories can have “a relative legitimacy” ( Habermas, 1988 , p. 3). Habermas also argues that, relative to other existing theories, the role of critical theory is to unify these multiple theories, considering their varied methods and presuppositions ( Habermas, 1988 ). Given this role, it stands to reason that any social scientific method or explanation-producing theory can be potentially critical.

Similarly, in critical theory, the relationship between researcher and participant is transactional, subjective, and dialectic. In other words, what can be known is inextricably tied to the interaction between an investigator and an object or group. Insofar as one can separate oneself from marginalized groups in an effort to remain “objective,” one removes oneself from one’s “share” of the social condition studied, likely perpetuating the inequalities that contribute to the adverse social conditions often of interest to social scientists.

Researchers who employ critical theory take values a step further than constructivists do in that they hope and expect their value biases to influence the research process and outcome. More specifically, because critical theory concerns itself with unequal distributions of power and the resultant oppression of subjugated groups, a preset goal of the research is to empower participants to transform the status quo and emancipate themselves from ongoing oppression. Thus, critical theorist researchers acknowledge at the outset that they expect results to document the high levels of stress or disadvantage of the group under study. Beyond this, such researchers aim to use the results and report of the study in some way to advocate for improvement of the examined group.

Critical theorists, given their stance on the importance of researcher–participant interaction and the significance of understanding values as influencing the reality under study, more often use naturalistic designs in which the researcher is engaged in the daily life of participants. Critical theoretical approaches tend to rely on dialogic methods, which may combine data collection methods (e.g., participant observation, in-depth interviewing, first-person written reports) with opportunity for reflection. This approach intentionally invites a questioning of the “natural” status quo and order and an exploration of the tensions that characterize the social issue under exploration. Inherently challenging, this approach values transparency and welcomes opportunities for alternative paradigms to be considered as part of the learning process itself.

Methodologically, contexts are not merely conceptualized as “variables,” but as essential parts of subjectivity according to critical theory. In terms of the field of psychology, this approach invites us to consider the role of research in terms of how liberation might take shape across the lifespan. Qualitative approaches in which a researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as PAR ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 ), provide ample example of critical theory at work in the research context.

Application in the Field

Participatory action research is a form of action research anchored in the belief that the research process itself serves as a mechanism for social change. Participatory action research is an approach focused on critical theory because, at its core, PAR is geared toward empowerment of participants that leads to emancipation from oppression and enhanced quality of life. In laypersons’ terms, “you get people affected by a problem together, figure out what is going on as a group, and then do something about it” ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 , p. 187).

According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) , PAR often involves a cycle of self-reflection and action in addressing a community problem. Participants and researchers establish a collaborative relationship as they ask critical questions about the current life situation. This dialogue moves the group to action as they develop knowledge and further explore the problem and how it can be addressed. In this way, collaborators using PAR begin to set a stage of social action to instigate change.

The process of change emerges and shifts as part of the self-reflective cycles, but typically is not predetermined by a clear series of procedural and analytic steps. Instead, during the reflective and action spiral, PAR investigators rely on a wide variety of methods and procedures as they gradually better understand the needs of the community. As such, many studies that use PAR take on varied methods such as storytelling, sharing experiences, individual and focus group interviews, participant observation, drawings, and even the more structured qualitative interview or quantitative survey as the need merits.

When engaged in a PAR process, study participants are expected to participate fully. However, the creation of such participatory contexts is very challenging and time-consuming, and is not the norm ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 ). Disempowered groups are seldom given the opportunity and at times are discouraged from this type of action. Further compounding this problem is the tendency for established forums (e.g., academia) to claim exclusive ownership of methods of knowledge gathering and avenues for change. All of these challenges further lend the process of PAR to be informed by critical theory. As a specific example, Dentith, Measor, and O’Malley (2012) outline the practice of using critical theory across three separate research projects involving young people facing various life difficulties and vulnerabilities. In so doing, they highlight the dilemmas they face in doing so within the context of more traditional, positivist approaches frequently favored in academic research settings.

Participatory action research is somewhat new to the field of psychology and has not historically been utilized frequently in this field. This is likely at least in part due to the axiology of PAR as a critical theory method that advocates a value-directed (rather than value-neutral post-positivism or value-bracketed constructivism) stance. Traditionally trained psychologists may be made initially uncomfortable by research that is value mediated because psychological training often conceives of research as objective, in which participants are studied without changing them or the researchers.

Feminist Theories

Feminist theories are used to frame and understand research approaches across a range of disciplines and social problems. They developed in part in response to prevailing ideas that more traditional scientific inquiry tended to exclude women from inquiry and deny women epistemic authority ( Anderson, 1995 ). They are often associated with critical theory, although they have been considered by some to be separate ( Crotty, 1998 ), yet closely related, within the epistemological continuum.

Informed by the political ideologies of the 1970s women’s movement, feminist scholars sought to reinterpret and modify concepts within the philosophy of science to create feminist approaches to research. Originally fueled by activism, feminism as an academic focus has developed significantly from the 1980s until the present. According to feminist paradigms, the traditional philosophy of science has tended to produce theories that represent women (or their activities and interests) as inferior to their male counterparts. Further, “feminine” cognitive styles and modes of knowledge have been denigrated by traditional inquiry ( Anderson, 1995 ), producing knowledge that is not relevant to people in subordinate positions and/or that reinforces unequal power dynamics, particularly as it relates to gender.

Feminist theories “place gender at the center of inquiry,” and yet “increasingly incorporate multiple... intersectionalities of identity,” including sexuality, race, religion, and social class ( Marshall & Rossman, 2010 , p. 27). Similar to critical theory, the larger aim of feminist theories is to turn thought into action ( Marshall & Rossman, 2010 ), in this case by focusing on the issues faced by women and other often marginalized groups.

Epistemologically, feminist theories focus on the accounts of women (and other historically marginalized groups) as legitimate and core sources of knowledge. Of note, feminist theories are not distinguished so much by their substantive topic (e.g., women’s issues, gender, reproductive rights, etc.) or by the gender of the researcher (i.e., male or female) but rather by their orientation and guiding philosophy on epistemology and research creation (e.g., methodology).

Over the past two decades, feminist scholars have developed alternative epistemologies to guide the process of doing research. Feminist methodologies attempt to eradicate sexist bias in research while capturing women’s voices, particularly those consistent with feminist ideals. Epistemologically, feminist theories privilege women’s experiences as not only legitimate, but also as important and revealing bases of knowledge. Work guided by feminist theories often aims to employ qualitative methodologies toward the exploration of power imbalances, starting with that between the researcher and researched ( Marshall & Rossman, 2010 ), so as to engender trust and collect accurate data. Research informed by feminist theory, like critical theory more broadly, also challenges academia traditionally due to its value of application of research to lived experiences ( Smart, 2009 ), particularly among those who are oppressed. Thus, feminist theories mirror the core values of critical theory in emphasizing the mutual learning between the researcher and the researched, an exchange that is critical to the emancipation of disenfranchised or overlooked groups.

Feminist research has emphasized the importance of exploring the day-to-day experiences of marginalized groups, particularly women. Qualitative approaches are particularly well-suited to capturing the “messiness” of these daily experiences because these methods can account for emotions, as well as for other less tangible aspects of experience, in data collection. Often, feminist theories invite more traditional forms of qualitative data collection (e.g., interviewing, focus groups, ethnography) to be adapted to be more consistent with feminist ideology.

As referenced earlier, a feminist approach to research can be employed across the social as well as physical sciences and beyond. For the most part, researchers employing this approach attempt to eradicate sexist bias in research while seeking to capture women’s voices, particularly as they apply to the day-to-day experiences of everyday life. This angle lends itself well to studies such as those examining the experiences of domestic workers and domestic violence. Core to the use of feminist theory is the understanding that ways of knowing, or epistemologies, are constantly evolving as knowledge grows and as the “knowers” expand in scope. Thus, bodies of research, as they make use of a feminist lens, may find that the social problem under study increases the complexity of the problem under study. This is characteristic of feminist methodologies. However, such an approach is also characterized by reducing the hierarchical relationship between researchers and their participants to facilitate trust and disclosure and recognizing and reflecting on the emotionality of women’s lives.

Queer Theory

With the rise of the gay liberation movement in the post-Stonewall era, gay and lesbian perspectives began to contribute to politics, philosophy, and social theory. Initially, these were often connected to feminist ideology. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, queer theory was developed as its own framework. The term “queer,” as opposed to “gay and lesbian,” also distinguished the theory from those that preceded it, specifically gay liberation theories. Similar to feminist theories, queer theory was accompanied by social movements, and its emergence evolved in part as a reaction to the marginalization of the LBGTQ community and the ways by which “science” had historically been used against them ( Minton, 1997 ).

Queer theory found a more natural home in qualitative research because this form had historically been less focused on objective reality and more on subjective experiences ( Downing & Gillett, 2011 ). However, its emergence has occurred within an ongoing evolution in terms of how we consider sexuality and marginalization in research and in society at large. In the early 1900s, the scientific examination of those who were in same-sex relationships was perpetually challenged by the stigma and silence faced by this group. In short, this population was hard to identify and find, much less research. The second half of the twentieth century, however, shifted this as lesbian and gay studies expanded exponentially ( Gamson, 2000 ), focusing explicitly on the lives of those who identify as gay or lesbian. Queer theory, a more recent arrival on the scene, has introduced a post-structuralist critique by suggesting that the self cannot and should not be identified by sexuality or sexual orientation by itself, thereby challenging the importance of studying sexuality as a “subject” of inquiry. Although the tension proposed by these shifts is often applauded within the qualitative research world (e.g., Gamson, 2000 ), it is this context in which queer theory has emerged.

Queer theory was separate from gay liberation theories in several ways. First, queer theory defined itself as not specific only to sexuality. Instead, queer theory does not refer to a nature, be it sexual or otherwise, but rather as a relational construct. “Queer” refers specifically to being “outside the norm”; this norm can vary relative to context. In other words, “Queer is... whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers . It is an identity without an essence” ( Halperin, 1995 , p. 62; emphasis in the original).

Because queer theory does not suggest a specific nature or essence, it therefore is inclusive of those who may express themselves outside any norm, including that of the gay and lesbian community. In other words, sadomasochism, perhaps marginalized by some constructs, is not so according to queer theory. Additionally, this lack of focus on a specific essence allows gays and lesbians to identify by their sexuality or by any other aspect of their identity, thereby placing the focus on personal meaning, as opposed to societally ascribed labels.

A central claim of queer theorists, which is that identity is understood exclusively as a social construct (rather than given by nature), significantly affects how research is carried out within this approach. Most immediately, it implies that research needs to be evaluated for biases that privilege heterosexuality ( Butler, 1990 ; 1993 ), however subtle. Based on the concern that queer theory places on false dichotomies (e.g., “closeted” and “out,” etc.), this theory also is critical of other dichotomies implied in research, particularly as it relates to assumptions regarding what is natural or artificial and what is masculine versus feminine. Instead, queer theory emphasizes the importance of understanding categories more fluidly, an approach that lends itself more toward qualitative methods, which seek to explore social phenomena with an eye toward complexity rather than standardization.

Queer theory has been applied to multiple social problems and developmental issues. However, it is most often applied to questions concerning empowerment, resistance to domination (e.g., heterosexism, homophobia), gender identity and marginalization due to gender, sexual orientation, or sexual behavior. Because queer theory is concerned with the nonessential nature of sexual identity, this theory pushes the field to consider identity from multiple perspectives, and invites cultural as well as race-related inquiry.

Conclusion and Future Directions

It is impossible to fully represent the richness of any one of these philosophical approaches in a chapter such as this one. We have instead tried to convey a sense of the breadth of the field and to illuminate at least some of the meaningful distinctions in the major approaches to qualitative research in psychology today. In this last section, we turn our attention to the future and identify three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as we move forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches. The contested nature of these issues stems in part from the very diversity of philosophical approaches that has defined the field. Here, again, we cannot possibly represent the considerable thought behind and debate around each of these matters. Rather, we simply raise and mark them at this time.

The diversity of approaches represented in the field of qualitative research today speaks to the strength of the movement and bodes well for our efforts to both advance and deepen our understanding of the psychological world. As Ann Hartman (1990) wrote many years ago, “each way of knowing deepens our understanding and adds another dimension to our view of the world” (p. 3). Just as no single research design or data collection method can adequately capture the multidimensional nature of human psychology, no one philosophical approach can suitably guide our efforts to address the full range of questions that need to be pursued to develop the knowledge needed “to benefit society and improve people’s lives” ( American Psychological Association, 2013 ).

However, this diversity in approaches to qualitative research also creates significant tensions and makes attempts to “define” the field quite challenging. Despite the substantial work done by many scholars (c.f. Denzin & Lincoln, 2013 ) to delineate these contrasting perspectives and approaches, a lack of awareness remains, especially (but not exclusively) among those not well-versed in qualitative methods. The predictable misunderstandings and strong differences in beliefs about what is “credible” research that can result continue to plague those of us who practice qualitative research as we strive to get our work funded and published more widely. Peer reviews of our work can often be riddled with contradictory assessments of its rigor and even of its basic value or contribution. (c.f. Ceglowski, Bacigalupa, & Peck, 2011 ).

Continued efforts to make clear the diversity of approaches, the philosophical assumptions guiding these, and the particular contributions the differing approaches make to our understanding of psychology are critical. We must be cautious about making general claims about rigor and the “right” way to do qualitative research that are actually framed within our own narrower terms or experience with certain approaches. Keeping the richness of the field alive will require discipline on all of our parts to respond to questions about how best to go about engaging in high quality qualitative research or evaluating the quality of the work of others by first acknowledging “it depends” and then inquiring about the philosophical approach, aims, and context of the work.

One of the biggest challenges before us is the continued articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research that represent, and which ideally can be applied to, the full range of approaches. The very differences in purpose and aims and in philosophical approaches that comprise the rich field of qualitative research today makes such efforts seem impossible. However, ignoring this task in the era of what has been called the scientifically based research movement ( National Research Council, 2002 ; Torrance, 2008 ), defined largely in terms of experimental design and methods and with randomized controlled trials heralded as the “gold standard,” leaves the array of approaches that do not readily fit this mold highly vulnerable. But what is the best way to address these complex and high-stakes issues?

Researchers taking a more post-positivistic approach have argued that there are separate but parallel sets of standards for validity and reliability in qualitative and quantitative research (e.g., Hammersley, 1992 ; Kuzel & Engel, 2001 ). Some constructivists have put forth that a common set of standards can be established but because the foundational philosophical approaches between post-positivism and constructivism are so different, a separate and distinct set of criteria need to be applied. Models using concepts such as trustworthiness, transferability, and authenticity have been developed (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989 ), and it is estimated that more than 100 quality appraisal forms have been put forth ( Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ). Unfortunately, most do not make clear the philosophical assumptions that undergird them ( Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ), which unfortunately further muddies the water. Moreover, other adherents to constructivist approaches hold that the contextual and relational nature of knowledge construction precludes the possibility of establishing such standards (e.g., Lincoln, 1995 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). Finally, many working from within critical theory and related approaches suggest that such standards are inevitably formed by the power structures in which they are housed, thereby potentially further perpetuating the inequalities the research aims to address or study (e.g., Garrett & Hodkinson, 1998 ). Furthermore, they assert that the quality of the research should be based on an assessment of whether it empowered participants to effect meaningful and lasting changes ( Correa, 2013 ).

Some have tried to resolve these tensions by suggesting guidelines they believe account for and are applicable across the diversity of approaches to qualitative research (e.g., Drisko, 1997 ; Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ; Tracy, 2010 ). These guidelines focus on the different components of the research process, such as clear identification of philosophical approach and aims of the research, specification of methods and congruence between these and the stated philosophical approach and aims, and transparency and clarity in sampling, data collection, and data analytic procedures. Although the imperative to tackle these issues is clear, the way forward to doing this is less so. Should we push further toward agreeing on a shared set of standards that can be applied across traditions, or invest in more localized ones tailored specifically to particular approaches (e.g., narrative analysis) and developed by scholars practicing these ( Preissle, 2013 ), or both? How might the myriad elements of research, including the many gatekeeping activities in the research and scholarship enterprise from funding through publication of research findings, address and accommodate these standards in their expectations and processes? What is clear is that the diversity of approaches to qualitative research must be fully represented in any efforts to further define and move the field forward on this front.

Embracing and fully representing the diversity of approaches and coming to terms with standards for them stills leaves unaddressed a third concern for the field moving forward, namely what has been referred to as the commensurability of approaches . That is, whether approaches rooted in the differing philosophical approaches can be “retrofitted to each other in ways that make the simultaneously practice of both possible” ( Lincoln et al., 2013 , p. 238). Some, such as critical and feminist theorists, have argued that epistemological differences between methods can render research paradigms incompatible ( Lincoln et al., 2013 ). Others have dismissed assertions about irreconcilable differences between philosophical approaches and research paradigms and argue for what they call a “pragmatic” approach, particularly in the service of carrying out mixed-methods research (e.g., Creswell, 2009 ; Creswell & Clark, 2007 ; Maxcy, 2003 ). Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2013) take a middle position and offer a “cautious” endorsement of the commensurability of approaches. They assert that some approaches share some elements that are similar or strongly related and therefore can be effectively and meaningfully combined, whereas others are more “contradictory and mutually exclusive” (p. 239). Preissle (2013) , in her consideration of the future of the field, makes a pragmatic argument of a different sort for commensurability. Citing the work of her students that has combined approaches in unconventional yet highly productive ways, she observes that the novice scholars of today are “challenging, even transgressing, epistemological and theoretical boundaries” that will ultimately move research forward in unexpected ways” (p. 536).

There is nothing new about these questions. They have been debated for decades now, and clarity seems no nearer. What has changed is the climate. It is at once more open to qualitative methods than ever before and less accommodating of the rich diversity among the approaches taken to this work. Increasing numbers of graduate students are being trained in multiple methodologies. Although, unfortunately, there does not yet appear to be a cry for purely qualitative studies on the horizon, most major funding sources are at least indicating a preference for the use of multiple methods, in some cases even quite strongly so. Qualitative studies can be found in journals of differing ilk, not just within the confines of those dedicated to publishing qualitative research. However, what is deemed acceptable or “credible” qualitative research is narrowing. In the parlance of the old expression “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” the widening exposure and reach of qualitative work means that many more scholars are encountering and engaging with it in some way; these scholars often do not realize that what they know is but a small slice of a now large and longstanding field. Researchers outside the field of qualitative research who participate in setting the standards for research more broadly may be friendly to particular kinds of approaches, such as seeing a place for qualitative work only in the exploration of new areas of inquiry to offer “thick description” and examples or to complement or round out the quantitative findings, but much less so to stand-alone work or work aimed at explicating processes and mechanisms at work in human psychology. Scholars from within who are joining in the work of setting the standards of research can sometimes allow certain kinds of qualitative research to stand for the field, which can serve to belie and even shut out other, often more transgressive forms. These perhaps seemingly old and familiar questions about philosophies of science, rigor, and commensurability are alive and well, taking new forms, and they are, in some ways, more important now than ever before.

Adorno, T. , Albert, R. , Dahrendorf, H. , Habermas, J. , Pilot, H. , & Popper, K. ( 1969 ). The positivist dispute in German sociology . London: Heinemann.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). About APA . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/3/27/2013

Anderson, E. ( 1995 ). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and defense.   Hypatia , 10 , 50–84.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. ( 1966 ). The social construction of reality: A Treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York: Anchor Books.

Birks, M. , & Mills, J. ( 2011 ). Grounded theory: A practical guide . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method . Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. ( 1998 ). Foundations of qualitative research in education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. ( 2010 ). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An epistemological account. In K. Charmaz & A. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of grounded theory (pp. 31– 57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burr, Vi. ( 1998 ). Gender and social psychology . London: Routledge.

Butler, J. ( 1990 ). Gender trouble . London: Routledge.

Butler, J. ( 1993 ). Bodies that Matter: On the discursive limits of “sex” . London: Routledge.

Camic, P. M. , Rhodes, J. E. , & Yardley, L. ( 2003 ). Naming the stars: Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research. In P. M. Camic , J. E. Rhodes , & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 3–15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ceglowski, D. , Bacigalupa, C. , & Peck, E. ( 2011 ). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of “scientifically based research”.   Qualitative Inquiry , 17 (8), 679–686.

Charmaz, K. ( 2000 ). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. ( 2006 ). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cook, W. L. , & Douglas, E. M. ( 1998 ). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relational analysis.   Journal of Family Psychology , 12 (2), 299–309.

Correa, F. P. ( 2013 ). The evaluation of qualitative research: A reflection from a justice perspective.   Qualitative Inquiry , 19 (3), 209–218.

Creswell, J. W. ( 2007 ). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. ( 2009 ). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. , & Clark, V. L. P. ( 2007 ). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crotty, M. ( 1998 ). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dentith, A. M. , Measor, L. , & O’Malley, M. P. (2012). The research imagination amid dilemmas of engaging young people in critical participatory work. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 13 (1), Art 17. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1788/3309

Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2013 ). The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downing, L. , & Gillett, R. ( 2011 ). Viewing critical psychology through the lens of queer.   Psychology & Sexuality , 2 (1), 4–15.

Dilthey, W. ( 1977 ). Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytic psychology (1894). In Descriptive psychology and historical understanding ( R. M. Zaner & K. L. Heiges , Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Drisko, J. ( 1997 ). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to enhance academic integrity.   Journal of Social Work Education , 33 , 1–13.

Friedman, M. , Friedlander, M. , & Blustein, D. ( 2005 ). Toward an understanding of Jewish identity: A phenomenological study.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (1), 77–83.

Gamson, J. ( 2000 ). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 347–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garrett, D. , & Hodkinson, P. ( 1998 ). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma.   Qualitative Inquiry , 4 (4), 515–539.

Geertz, C. ( 1983 ). Local knowledge . New York: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. ( 1996 ). Social psychology as social construction: The emerging vision. In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), For the message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 113–128). Oxford: Blackwell.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. ( 1967 ): The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. ( 1959 ). The presentation of self in everyday life . New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Goodman, F., & Fisher, W. (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Rethinking knowledge: Reflections across the disciplines . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Guba, E. G. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1989 ). Fourth generation evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Habermas, J. ( 1988 ). On the logic of the social sciences . ( S. W. Nicholsen & J. A. Stark , Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. ( 1990 ). Moral consciousness and communicative action . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halperin, D. M. ( 1995 ). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hammersley, M. ( 1992 ). What’s wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.

Hartman, A. ( 1990 ). Many ways of knowing.   Social Work , 35 (1), 3–4.

Hays, D. G. , & Singh, A. A. ( 2012 ). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings . New York: Guilford Press.

Hein, S. F., & Austin, W. J. ( 2001 ). Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological research in psychology: A comparison.   Psychological Methods , 4 (1), 3–17.

Hill, C. E. , Knox, S. , Thompson, B. J. , Williams, E. N. , Hess, S. A. , & Ladany, N. ( 2005 ). Consensual qualitative research: An update.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 196–205.

Hill, C. E. , Thompson, B. J. , & Williams, E. N. ( 1997 ). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research.   The counseling psychologist , 25 (4), 517–572.

Horkheimer, M. ( 1972 ). Critical theory: Selected essays . New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Jost, J. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. ( 2002 ). The estrangement of social constructionism and experimental social psychology: History of the rift and prospects for reconciliation.   Personality and Social Psychology Review , 6 (3), 168–187.

Keen, E. ( 1975 ). A primer in phenomenological psychology . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. ( 2005 ). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kidd, S. A. , & Kral, M. J. ( 2005 ). Practicing participatory research.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 187–195.

Kockelmans, J. ( 1973 ). Theoretical Problems in Phenomenological Psychology. In M. Natanson (Ed.). Phenomenology and the Social Sciences . (Vol. 1, pp. 225–280). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Kompridis, N. ( 2006 ). Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kuzel, A. & Engel, J. ( 2001 ). Some pragmatic thought on evaluating qualitative health research. In J. Morse , J. Swanson , & A. Kuzel (Eds.), The Nature of Qualitative Evidence (pp. 114–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1995 ). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.   Qualitative Inquiry , 1 , 275–289.

Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. , & Guba, E. G. ( 2013 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 199–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. , & Guba, E. G. ( 2011 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. ( 2010 ). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maxcy, S. J. ( 2003 ). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mead, G. H. ( 1913 ). The social self.   Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods , 10 (14), 374–380.

Milgram, S. ( 1974 ). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View . New York, NY: HarperPerennial.

Minton, H. L. ( 1997 ). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology.   Theory & Psychology , 7 (3), 337–353.

National Research Council (NRC). ( 2002 ). Scientific research in education . Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. ( R. J. Shavelson , & L. Towne , Eds.). Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Packer, M. J. ( 2011 ). The science of qualitative research . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ponterotto, J. G. ( 2005 ). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 126–136.

Ponterotto, J. G. , Casas, J. M. , Suzuki, L. A. , & Alexander, C. M. ( 2010 ). Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ponticelli, C. ( 1999 ). Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction.   Social Science Quarterly , 62 (2), 157–172.

Popper, K. R. (1934/ 1959 ). The logic of scientific inquiry . New York: Basic Books.

Preissle, J. ( 2013 ). Qualitative futures: Where we might go from here. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 517–543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rennie, D. L. , Watson, K. D. , & Monteiro, A. M. ( 2002 ). The rise of qualitative research in psychology.   Canadian Psychology , 43 , 179–189.

Rogers, C. R. ( 1951 ). Client-centered therapy . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Saini, M. , & Shlonsky, A. ( 2012 ). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandstrom, K. L. , Martin, D. D. , & Fine, G. A. ( 2006 ). Symbols, selves, and social reality: A symbolic interactionist approach (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 1996 ). Farewell to criteriology.   Qualitative Inquiry , 2 (1), 58–72.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 2001 ). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smart, C. ( 2009 ). Shifting horizons: Reflections on qualitative methods.   Feminist theory , 10 (3), 295–308.

Smith, D. W. (2011). Phenomenology. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ( E. N. Zalta , Ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/phenomenology

Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. ( 1987 ). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities.   The American Journal of Sociology , 92 (6), 1336–1371.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1998 ). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stryker, S. ( 1987 ). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism.   Social Psychology Quarterly , 50 , 83–94.

Torrance, H. ( 2008 ). Building confidence in qualitative research: Engaging the demands of policy.   Qualitative Inquiry , 14 (4), 507–527.

Tracy, S. J. ( 2010 ). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.   Qualitative inquiry , 16 (10), 837–851.

Wertz, F. J. ( 2011 ). A phenomenological psychological approach to trauma and resilience. In F. J. Wertz , L. M. McMullen , R. Josselson , R. Anderson , & E. McSpadden (Eds.), Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry (pp. 124–164). New York: Guilford Press.

Wertz, F. J. , Charmaz, K. , McMullen, L. J. , Josselson, R. , Anderson, R. , & McSpadden, E. ( 2011 ). Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology.   Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry . New York: Guilford Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.74(8); 2010 Oct 11

Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research

The purpose of this paper is to help authors to think about ways to present qualitative research papers in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education . It also discusses methods for reviewers to assess the rigour, quality, and usefulness of qualitative research. Examples of different ways to present data from interviews, observations, and focus groups are included. The paper concludes with guidance for publishing qualitative research and a checklist for authors and reviewers.

INTRODUCTION

Policy and practice decisions, including those in education, increasingly are informed by findings from qualitative as well as quantitative research. Qualitative research is useful to policymakers because it often describes the settings in which policies will be implemented. Qualitative research is also useful to both pharmacy practitioners and pharmacy academics who are involved in researching educational issues in both universities and practice and in developing teaching and learning.

Qualitative research involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data that are not easily reduced to numbers. These data relate to the social world and the concepts and behaviors of people within it. Qualitative research can be found in all social sciences and in the applied fields that derive from them, for example, research in health services, nursing, and pharmacy. 1 It looks at X in terms of how X varies in different circumstances rather than how big is X or how many Xs are there? 2 Textbooks often subdivide research into qualitative and quantitative approaches, furthering the common assumption that there are fundamental differences between the 2 approaches. With pharmacy educators who have been trained in the natural and clinical sciences, there is often a tendency to embrace quantitative research, perhaps due to familiarity. A growing consensus is emerging that sees both qualitative and quantitative approaches as useful to answering research questions and understanding the world. Increasingly mixed methods research is being carried out where the researcher explicitly combines the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the study. 3 , 4

Like healthcare, education involves complex human interactions that can rarely be studied or explained in simple terms. Complex educational situations demand complex understanding; thus, the scope of educational research can be extended by the use of qualitative methods. Qualitative research can sometimes provide a better understanding of the nature of educational problems and thus add to insights into teaching and learning in a number of contexts. For example, at the University of Nottingham, we conducted in-depth interviews with pharmacists to determine their perceptions of continuing professional development and who had influenced their learning. We also have used a case study approach using observation of practice and in-depth interviews to explore physiotherapists' views of influences on their leaning in practice. We have conducted in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders in Malawi, Africa, to explore the issues surrounding pharmacy academic capacity building. A colleague has interviewed and conducted focus groups with students to explore cultural issues as part of a joint Nottingham-Malaysia pharmacy degree program. Another colleague has interviewed pharmacists and patients regarding their expectations before and after clinic appointments and then observed pharmacist-patient communication in clinics and assessed it using the Calgary Cambridge model in order to develop recommendations for communication skills training. 5 We have also performed documentary analysis on curriculum data to compare pharmacist and nurse supplementary prescribing courses in the United Kingdom.

It is important to choose the most appropriate methods for what is being investigated. Qualitative research is not appropriate to answer every research question and researchers need to think carefully about their objectives. Do they wish to study a particular phenomenon in depth (eg, students' perceptions of studying in a different culture)? Or are they more interested in making standardized comparisons and accounting for variance (eg, examining differences in examination grades after changing the way the content of a module is taught). Clearly a quantitative approach would be more appropriate in the last example. As with any research project, a clear research objective has to be identified to know which methods should be applied.

Types of qualitative data include:

• Audio recordings and transcripts from in-depth or semi-structured interviews
• Structured interview questionnaires containing substantial open comments including a substantial number of responses to open comment items.
• Audio recordings and transcripts from focus group sessions.
• Field notes (notes taken by the researcher while in the field [setting] being studied)
• Video recordings (eg, lecture delivery, class assignments, laboratory performance)
• Case study notes
• Documents (reports, meeting minutes, e-mails)
• Diaries, video diaries
• Observation notes
• Press clippings
• Photographs

RIGOUR IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research is often criticized as biased, small scale, anecdotal, and/or lacking rigor; however, when it is carried out properly it is unbiased, in depth, valid, reliable, credible and rigorous. In qualitative research, there needs to be a way of assessing the “extent to which claims are supported by convincing evidence.” 1 Although the terms reliability and validity traditionally have been associated with quantitative research, increasingly they are being seen as important concepts in qualitative research as well. Examining the data for reliability and validity assesses both the objectivity and credibility of the research. Validity relates to the honesty and genuineness of the research data, while reliability relates to the reproducibility and stability of the data.

The validity of research findings refers to the extent to which the findings are an accurate representation of the phenomena they are intended to represent. The reliability of a study refers to the reproducibility of the findings. Validity can be substantiated by a number of techniques including triangulation use of contradictory evidence, respondent validation, and constant comparison. Triangulation is using 2 or more methods to study the same phenomenon. Contradictory evidence, often known as deviant cases, must be sought out, examined, and accounted for in the analysis to ensure that researcher bias does not interfere with or alter their perception of the data and any insights offered. Respondent validation, which is allowing participants to read through the data and analyses and provide feedback on the researchers' interpretations of their responses, provides researchers with a method of checking for inconsistencies, challenges the researchers' assumptions, and provides them with an opportunity to re-analyze their data. The use of constant comparison means that one piece of data (for example, an interview) is compared with previous data and not considered on its own, enabling researchers to treat the data as a whole rather than fragmenting it. Constant comparison also enables the researcher to identify emerging/unanticipated themes within the research project.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative researchers have been criticized for overusing interviews and focus groups at the expense of other methods such as ethnography, observation, documentary analysis, case studies, and conversational analysis. Qualitative research has numerous strengths when properly conducted.

Strengths of Qualitative Research

• Issues can be examined in detail and in depth.
• Interviews are not restricted to specific questions and can be guided/redirected by the researcher in real time.
• The research framework and direction can be quickly revised as new information emerges.
• The data based on human experience that is obtained is powerful and sometimes more compelling than quantitative data.
• Subtleties and complexities about the research subjects and/or topic are discovered that are often missed by more positivistic enquiries.
• Data usually are collected from a few cases or individuals so findings cannot be generalized to a larger population. Findings can however be transferable to another setting.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

• Research quality is heavily dependent on the individual skills of the researcher and more easily influenced by the researcher's personal biases and idiosyncrasies.
• Rigor is more difficult to maintain, assess, and demonstrate.
• The volume of data makes analysis and interpretation time consuming.
• It is sometimes not as well understood and accepted as quantitative research within the scientific community
• The researcher's presence during data gathering, which is often unavoidable in qualitative research, can affect the subjects' responses.
• Issues of anonymity and confidentiality can present problems when presenting findings
• Findings can be more difficult and time consuming to characterize in a visual way.

PRESENTATION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS

The following extracts are examples of how qualitative data might be presented:

Data From an Interview.

The following is an example of how to present and discuss a quote from an interview.

The researcher should select quotes that are poignant and/or most representative of the research findings. Including large portions of an interview in a research paper is not necessary and often tedious for the reader. The setting and speakers should be established in the text at the end of the quote.

The student describes how he had used deep learning in a dispensing module. He was able to draw on learning from a previous module, “I found that while using the e learning programme I was able to apply the knowledge and skills that I had gained in last year's diseases and goals of treatment module.” (interviewee 22, male)

This is an excerpt from an article on curriculum reform that used interviews 5 :

The first question was, “Without the accreditation mandate, how much of this curriculum reform would have been attempted?” According to respondents, accreditation played a significant role in prompting the broad-based curricular change, and their comments revealed a nuanced view. Most indicated that the change would likely have occurred even without the mandate from the accreditation process: “It reflects where the profession wants to be … training a professional who wants to take on more responsibility.” However, they also commented that “if it were not mandated, it could have been a very difficult road.” Or it “would have happened, but much later.” The change would more likely have been incremental, “evolutionary,” or far more limited in its scope. “Accreditation tipped the balance” was the way one person phrased it. “Nobody got serious until the accrediting body said it would no longer accredit programs that did not change.”

Data From Observations

The following example is some data taken from observation of pharmacist patient consultations using the Calgary Cambridge guide. 6 , 7 The data are first presented and a discussion follows:

Pharmacist: We will soon be starting a stop smoking clinic. Patient: Is the interview over now? Pharmacist: No this is part of it. (Laughs) You can't tell me to bog off (sic) yet. (pause) We will be starting a stop smoking service here, Patient: Yes. Pharmacist: with one-to-one and we will be able to help you or try to help you. If you want it. In this example, the pharmacist has picked up from the patient's reaction to the stop smoking clinic that she is not receptive to advice about giving up smoking at this time; in fact she would rather end the consultation. The pharmacist draws on his prior relationship with the patient and makes use of a joke to lighten the tone. He feels his message is important enough to persevere but he presents the information in a succinct and non-pressurised way. His final comment of “If you want it” is important as this makes it clear that he is not putting any pressure on the patient to take up this offer. This extract shows that some patient cues were picked up, and appropriately dealt with, but this was not the case in all examples.

Data From Focus Groups

This excerpt from a study involving 11 focus groups illustrates how findings are presented using representative quotes from focus group participants. 8

Those pharmacists who were initially familiar with CPD endorsed the model for their peers, and suggested it had made a meaningful difference in the way they viewed their own practice. In virtually all focus groups sessions, pharmacists familiar with and supportive of the CPD paradigm had worked in collaborative practice environments such as hospital pharmacy practice. For these pharmacists, the major advantage of CPD was the linking of workplace learning with continuous education. One pharmacist stated, “It's amazing how much I have to learn every day, when I work as a pharmacist. With [the learning portfolio] it helps to show how much learning we all do, every day. It's kind of satisfying to look it over and see how much you accomplish.” Within many of the learning portfolio-sharing sessions, debates emerged regarding the true value of traditional continuing education and its outcome in changing an individual's practice. While participants appreciated the opportunity for social and professional networking inherent in some forms of traditional CE, most eventually conceded that the academic value of most CE programming was limited by the lack of a systematic process for following-up and implementing new learning in the workplace. “Well it's nice to go to these [continuing education] events, but really, I don't know how useful they are. You go, you sit, you listen, but then, well I at least forget.”

The following is an extract from a focus group (conducted by the author) with first-year pharmacy students about community placements. It illustrates how focus groups provide a chance for participants to discuss issues on which they might disagree.

Interviewer: So you are saying that you would prefer health related placements? Student 1: Not exactly so long as I could be developing my communication skill. Student 2: Yes but I still think the more health related the placement is the more I'll gain from it. Student 3: I disagree because other people related skills are useful and you may learn those from taking part in a community project like building a garden. Interviewer: So would you prefer a mixture of health and non health related community placements?

GUIDANCE FOR PUBLISHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research is becoming increasingly accepted and published in pharmacy and medical journals. Some journals and publishers have guidelines for presenting qualitative research, for example, the British Medical Journal 9 and Biomedcentral . 10 Medical Education published a useful series of articles on qualitative research. 11 Some of the important issues that should be considered by authors, reviewers and editors when publishing qualitative research are discussed below.

Introduction.

A good introduction provides a brief overview of the manuscript, including the research question and a statement justifying the research question and the reasons for using qualitative research methods. This section also should provide background information, including relevant literature from pharmacy, medicine, and other health professions, as well as literature from the field of education that addresses similar issues. Any specific educational or research terminology used in the manuscript should be defined in the introduction.

The methods section should clearly state and justify why the particular method, for example, face to face semistructured interviews, was chosen. The method should be outlined and illustrated with examples such as the interview questions, focusing exercises, observation criteria, etc. The criteria for selecting the study participants should then be explained and justified. The way in which the participants were recruited and by whom also must be stated. A brief explanation/description should be included of those who were invited to participate but chose not to. It is important to consider “fair dealing,” ie, whether the research design explicitly incorporates a wide range of different perspectives so that the viewpoint of 1 group is never presented as if it represents the sole truth about any situation. The process by which ethical and or research/institutional governance approval was obtained should be described and cited.

The study sample and the research setting should be described. Sampling differs between qualitative and quantitative studies. In quantitative survey studies, it is important to select probability samples so that statistics can be used to provide generalizations to the population from which the sample was drawn. Qualitative research necessitates having a small sample because of the detailed and intensive work required for the study. So sample sizes are not calculated using mathematical rules and probability statistics are not applied. Instead qualitative researchers should describe their sample in terms of characteristics and relevance to the wider population. Purposive sampling is common in qualitative research. Particular individuals are chosen with characteristics relevant to the study who are thought will be most informative. Purposive sampling also may be used to produce maximum variation within a sample. Participants being chosen based for example, on year of study, gender, place of work, etc. Representative samples also may be used, for example, 20 students from each of 6 schools of pharmacy. Convenience samples involve the researcher choosing those who are either most accessible or most willing to take part. This may be fine for exploratory studies; however, this form of sampling may be biased and unrepresentative of the population in question. Theoretical sampling uses insights gained from previous research to inform sample selection for a new study. The method for gaining informed consent from the participants should be described, as well as how anonymity and confidentiality of subjects were guaranteed. The method of recording, eg, audio or video recording, should be noted, along with procedures used for transcribing the data.

Data Analysis.

A description of how the data were analyzed also should be included. Was computer-aided qualitative data analysis software such as NVivo (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) used? Arrival at “data saturation” or the end of data collection should then be described and justified. A good rule when considering how much information to include is that readers should have been given enough information to be able to carry out similar research themselves.

One of the strengths of qualitative research is the recognition that data must always be understood in relation to the context of their production. 1 The analytical approach taken should be described in detail and theoretically justified in light of the research question. If the analysis was repeated by more than 1 researcher to ensure reliability or trustworthiness, this should be stated and methods of resolving any disagreements clearly described. Some researchers ask participants to check the data. If this was done, it should be fully discussed in the paper.

An adequate account of how the findings were produced should be included A description of how the themes and concepts were derived from the data also should be included. Was an inductive or deductive process used? The analysis should not be limited to just those issues that the researcher thinks are important, anticipated themes, but also consider issues that participants raised, ie, emergent themes. Qualitative researchers must be open regarding the data analysis and provide evidence of their thinking, for example, were alternative explanations for the data considered and dismissed, and if so, why were they dismissed? It also is important to present outlying or negative/deviant cases that did not fit with the central interpretation.

The interpretation should usually be grounded in interviewees or respondents' contributions and may be semi-quantified, if this is possible or appropriate, for example, “Half of the respondents said …” “The majority said …” “Three said…” Readers should be presented with data that enable them to “see what the researcher is talking about.” 1 Sufficient data should be presented to allow the reader to clearly see the relationship between the data and the interpretation of the data. Qualitative data conventionally are presented by using illustrative quotes. Quotes are “raw data” and should be compiled and analyzed, not just listed. There should be an explanation of how the quotes were chosen and how they are labeled. For example, have pseudonyms been given to each respondent or are the respondents identified using codes, and if so, how? It is important for the reader to be able to see that a range of participants have contributed to the data and that not all the quotes are drawn from 1 or 2 individuals. There is a tendency for authors to overuse quotes and for papers to be dominated by a series of long quotes with little analysis or discussion. This should be avoided.

Participants do not always state the truth and may say what they think the interviewer wishes to hear. A good qualitative researcher should not only examine what people say but also consider how they structured their responses and how they talked about the subject being discussed, for example, the person's emotions, tone, nonverbal communication, etc. If the research was triangulated with other qualitative or quantitative data, this should be discussed.

Discussion.

The findings should be presented in the context of any similar previous research and or theories. A discussion of the existing literature and how this present research contributes to the area should be included. A consideration must also be made about how transferrable the research would be to other settings. Any particular strengths and limitations of the research also should be discussed. It is common practice to include some discussion within the results section of qualitative research and follow with a concluding discussion.

The author also should reflect on their own influence on the data, including a consideration of how the researcher(s) may have introduced bias to the results. The researcher should critically examine their own influence on the design and development of the research, as well as on data collection and interpretation of the data, eg, were they an experienced teacher who researched teaching methods? If so, they should discuss how this might have influenced their interpretation of the results.

Conclusion.

The conclusion should summarize the main findings from the study and emphasize what the study adds to knowledge in the area being studied. Mays and Pope suggest the researcher ask the following 3 questions to determine whether the conclusions of a qualitative study are valid 12 : How well does this analysis explain why people behave in the way they do? How comprehensible would this explanation be to a thoughtful participant in the setting? How well does the explanation cohere with what we already know?

CHECKLIST FOR QUALITATIVE PAPERS

This paper establishes criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research. It provides guidance for authors and reviewers to prepare and review qualitative research papers for the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education . A checklist is provided in Appendix 1 to assist both authors and reviewers of qualitative data.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the 3 reviewers whose ideas helped me to shape this paper.

Appendix 1. Checklist for authors and reviewers of qualitative research.

Introduction

• □ Research question is clearly stated.
• □ Research question is justified and related to the existing knowledge base (empirical research, theory, policy).
• □ Any specific research or educational terminology used later in manuscript is defined.
• □ The process by which ethical and or research/institutional governance approval was obtained is described and cited.
• □ Reason for choosing particular research method is stated.
• □ Criteria for selecting study participants are explained and justified.
• □ Recruitment methods are explicitly stated.
• □ Details of who chose not to participate and why are given.
• □ Study sample and research setting used are described.
• □ Method for gaining informed consent from the participants is described.
• □ Maintenance/Preservation of subject anonymity and confidentiality is described.
• □ Method of recording data (eg, audio or video recording) and procedures for transcribing data are described.
• □ Methods are outlined and examples given (eg, interview guide).
• □ Decision to stop data collection is described and justified.
• □ Data analysis and verification are described, including by whom they were performed.
• □ Methods for identifying/extrapolating themes and concepts from the data are discussed.
• □ Sufficient data are presented to allow a reader to assess whether or not the interpretation is supported by the data.
• □ Outlying or negative/deviant cases that do not fit with the central interpretation are presented.
• □ Transferability of research findings to other settings is discussed.
• □ Findings are presented in the context of any similar previous research and social theories.
• □ Discussion often is incorporated into the results in qualitative papers.
• □ A discussion of the existing literature and how this present research contributes to the area is included.
• □ Any particular strengths and limitations of the research are discussed.
• □ Reflection of the influence of the researcher(s) on the data, including a consideration of how the researcher(s) may have introduced bias to the results is included.

Conclusions

• □ The conclusion states the main finings of the study and emphasizes what the study adds to knowledge in the subject area.

• Home »
• Advice »
• Studying For A PhD

find your perfect postgrad program Search our Database of 30,000 Courses

Phd research methods: qualitative research.

In a nutshell, qualitative research is the method of using particular case studies and small, focused samples. Any broader ‘conclusions’ drawn using these methods are treated as ‘informed assertions’.

So just what kind of uses would qualitative research have? Well, let’s take the example of market research – you can test a product on a small focus group and from their response you can make changes to the product you are attempting to market. Or, perhaps, let’s look at psychology – many famous psychological theories begin with an initial case study – ever heard of the Little Albert Experiment? This uses just one child to show classical conditioning in humans.

But what are the different types of qualitative research methods? After all, we’ve already listed two that seem quite distinct.

The different types of qualitative research methods

Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages; being a participant increases the chance of seeing things as they really are, rather than as shown to an outsider, but it can also increase personal bias and distract from the role as researcher. With non-participatory observation, you are much less likely to experience bias, but you may miss some of the vital things you are looking out for.

#2 Questionnaires Questionnaires require much less involvement on the researcher’s part than some of these other methods (for example, observation) which means they can spend more time on the setup and results. These can be useful when there are particular responses desired (such as answers to ‘how do you feel about this product’) but does limit what data you end up with (as it’s only what you ask). As with any method, this too has advantages and disadvantages – you can ensure you’re getting the relevant data, but you are also opening up the possibility of biasing the subject in your questions.

#3 Other Written Materials In this case, it’s not handing out documents to be filled in, but looking at ones already written. This can be any kind of document, depending on your goal. This is particularly useful for subjects such as anthropology, where you can learn much about a group by their writings about themselves. That said, it can be used in many other places, psychology studies may often get you to keep a diary, for instance. This qualitative research method is useful because you can learn a lot from a variety of settings, and, if the materials are pre-created, then you don't have the problem of your presence changing how the group acts. However, interpreting them can be difficult, especially if they’re from a different culture or in another language.

#4 Sampling Sampling is the method of picking out a small group to focus on out of a larger one. Say we were studying students at a university, we cannot study all of them, so we may choose around 50 to focus on. Sampling can be complex as you want to ensure that your chosen sample is diverse meaning they can’t all be the same age, gender, ethnicity, orientation, and so on, unless of course one of these is the factor you’re studying. Sampling has the advantage of making it easier to study the group in question, and as you can manually choose a sample it does have the advantage of being able to fine tune the variables. Flaws, however, include the fact that a sample is just a sample, and may not be as representative as you hoped, especially if it’s a sample that people volunteer for as this will heavily bias the results towards the type of people who volunteer for studies.

#5 Interviews Interviews are a great way of talking one on one, or to small groups of people. This method is often useful when starting a project, to find out general trends or to get a feel for what you’re studying. It can also be useful later on, when wanting to ask specific things. However, if you are using interviews, you’ll have to be very aware of your methods and you need to be in control of everything. No leading questions, or closed off body language here.

The good thing about interviews is the chance to really ask questions, to get to know the person you’re talking to, and to observe the answers, rather than just reading them. The downside is the possibility of you influencing the answers accidentally.

These are the main methods used in qualitative research, and you’ll have seen them or variants thereof used in most social science textbooks.

Useful links:

Quantitative Research

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Social Sciences

Are you ready for a PhD?

IMAGE CREDIT: © Studio | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

Exclusive bursaries Open day alerts Funding advice Application tips Latest PG news

Sign up now!

Take 2 minutes to sign up to PGS student services and reap the benefits…

• The chance to apply for one of our 5 PGS Bursaries worth £2,000 each
• Fantastic scholarship updates
• Latest PG news sent directly to you.

• PhD in Clinical Psychology
• Clinical Concentrations
• PhD in Psychology
• PhD in Psychology with an emphasis in Media & Technology
• PhD in Infant and Early Childhood Development
• Media Psychology
• Master’s in Media Psychology
• Media Psychology Certificate
• Postbaccalaureate Certificate in Clinical Psychology
• Postdoctoral Certificate in Respecialization in Clinical Psychology
• Neuropsychology Specialization Training Program
• PhD Degree Completion Program
• PhD in Human Development
• PhD in Organizational Development and Change
• EdD Leadership for Change
• Doctoral Concentrations
• Master’s in Organization Development and Leadership
• Evidence Based Coaching Certificate
• ALL PROGRAMS
• COURSE CATALOG
• Request for Information
• Upcoming Info Session
• Degrees & Programs
• Transfer Credits
• Scholarships & Fellowships
• Tuition & Fees
• Office of Admissions
• Office of Financial Aid
• Veterans Services
• Office of Student Services
• myFielding (University Intranet)
• Moodle (Learning.Fielding.edu)
• Library Student Login
• One-Stop Student Center
• Contact An Advisor
• Student Advising
• REQUEST INFO
• 800.567.8910
• Alumni Events
• Alumni News
• Alumni Services
• Qualitative Research from Start to Finish In-Person Seminar in Santa Barbara, California

Fielding Graduate University’s School for Leadership Studies (SLS) organized a Research and Practice session, “Qualitative Research from Start to Finish” which took place April 11 – 13, 2024 in Santa Barbara, California. 

Fourteen PhD and EdD students came from around the country and Canada to move their dissertation topic and research ahead.  Led by Human and Organization Development (HOD) faculty, Patrice Rosenthal, Fred Steier and Annabelle Nelson, joined by Valerie Bentz, Rich Appelbaum and Keith Melville, topics ranged from the research topic, research question, the literature review, qualitative interviewing, and qualitative research methods.

Students from the first term to those analyzing their qualitative interviews found tailored workshops and engendered peer support.  For over four decades, Keith Melville, HOD faculty was vetted at a celebratory dinner,  with everyone singing the Fielding Fight song.  Students reported that the experience was powerful in catalyzing their motivation and moving ahead in the dissertation process.

“Nothing beats such in-person sessions, personalized yet a shared collective wisdom in a safe and inclusive environment,” Lynn Sitanimezi, graduate student. “Our time together made Fielding feel real.” Michele Leaver, graduate student “It was especially helpful to be able to hear from and have conversations with multiple faculty beyond my committee about my topic and to return to the next layer of questions/thinking that inevitably bubble up while still together.” Linda Urban, graduate student

Photos from the Event

About the Author: Fielding News

Share This Post!

Related posts.

• Statement From the President: Transforming the Climate Conversation on Earth Day

• Alums Wanda Whiteside, Ed.D., and Kathy Bell, Ph.D., Receive Dianne Kipnes Social Innovation Award

• The Role of Community Colleges in Advancing Economic Equity and Social Justice

Filter by Category

• Fielding’s ELC Program Named to Carnegie Project April 22nd, 2014
• Fielding’s Clinical Psych PhD Ranks Among Top 20 Most Innovative October 10th, 2014
• Fielding Gets Community Engagement Mark from Carnegie Foundation January 8th, 2015

Recent Posts

Join over 7,500 fielding alumni located around the world.

Change the world. Start with yours.™

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Your Location * Your Location USA Canada International
• Program of Interest * Program of Interest PhD in Clinical Psychology PhD in Psychology with an Emphasis in Media & Technology PhD in Psychology PhD in Infant and Early Childhood Development PhD in Human Development PhD in Organizational Development and Change EdD in Leadership for Change MA in Organization Development and Leadership MA in Infant, Child, Family Mental Health and Development MA in Applied Media Psychology Certificate in Evidence Based Coaching Certificate in Media Psychology Neuropsychology Specialization Training Program Postbaccalaureate Certificate in Clinical Psychology Postdoctoral Certificate of Respecialization in Clinical Psychology

Contact Info

Fielding Graduate University 2020 De la Vina Street Santa Barbara, California 93105

Phone: 1-800-340-1099 Admissions: 805-898-4026

Email: [email protected]

Web: Fielding.edu/apply-now

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Table of Contents

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on exploring and understanding people’s beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. It seeks to answer research questions through the examination of subjective data, such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and textual analysis.

Qualitative research aims to uncover the meaning and significance of social phenomena, and it typically involves a more flexible and iterative approach to data collection and analysis compared to quantitative research. Qualitative research is often used in fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative Research Methods are as follows:

One-to-One Interview

This method involves conducting an interview with a single participant to gain a detailed understanding of their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. One-to-one interviews can be conducted in-person, over the phone, or through video conferencing. The interviewer typically uses open-ended questions to encourage the participant to share their thoughts and feelings. One-to-one interviews are useful for gaining detailed insights into individual experiences.

Focus Groups

This method involves bringing together a group of people to discuss a specific topic in a structured setting. The focus group is led by a moderator who guides the discussion and encourages participants to share their thoughts and opinions. Focus groups are useful for generating ideas and insights, exploring social norms and attitudes, and understanding group dynamics.

Ethnographic Studies

This method involves immersing oneself in a culture or community to gain a deep understanding of its norms, beliefs, and practices. Ethnographic studies typically involve long-term fieldwork and observation, as well as interviews and document analysis. Ethnographic studies are useful for understanding the cultural context of social phenomena and for gaining a holistic understanding of complex social processes.

Text Analysis

This method involves analyzing written or spoken language to identify patterns and themes. Text analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative text analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Text analysis is useful for understanding media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.

This method involves an in-depth examination of a single person, group, or event to gain an understanding of complex phenomena. Case studies typically involve a combination of data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case. Case studies are useful for exploring unique or rare cases, and for generating hypotheses for further research.

Process of Observation

This method involves systematically observing and recording behaviors and interactions in natural settings. The observer may take notes, use audio or video recordings, or use other methods to document what they see. Process of observation is useful for understanding social interactions, cultural practices, and the context in which behaviors occur.

Record Keeping

This method involves keeping detailed records of observations, interviews, and other data collected during the research process. Record keeping is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data, and for providing a basis for analysis and interpretation.

This method involves collecting data from a large sample of participants through a structured questionnaire. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, through mail, or online. Surveys are useful for collecting data on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and for identifying patterns and trends in a population.

Qualitative data analysis is a process of turning unstructured data into meaningful insights. It involves extracting and organizing information from sources like interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The goal is to understand people’s attitudes, behaviors, and motivations

Qualitative Research Analysis Methods

Qualitative Research analysis methods involve a systematic approach to interpreting and making sense of the data collected in qualitative research. Here are some common qualitative data analysis methods:

Thematic Analysis

This method involves identifying patterns or themes in the data that are relevant to the research question. The researcher reviews the data, identifies keywords or phrases, and groups them into categories or themes. Thematic analysis is useful for identifying patterns across multiple data sources and for generating new insights into the research topic.

Content Analysis

This method involves analyzing the content of written or spoken language to identify key themes or concepts. Content analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative content analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Content analysis is useful for identifying patterns in media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.

Discourse Analysis

This method involves analyzing language to understand how it constructs meaning and shapes social interactions. Discourse analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is useful for understanding how language shapes social interactions, cultural norms, and power relationships.

Grounded Theory Analysis

This method involves developing a theory or explanation based on the data collected. Grounded theory analysis starts with the data and uses an iterative process of coding and analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data. The theory or explanation that emerges is grounded in the data, rather than preconceived hypotheses. Grounded theory analysis is useful for understanding complex social phenomena and for generating new theoretical insights.

Narrative Analysis

This method involves analyzing the stories or narratives that participants share to gain insights into their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. Narrative analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as structural analysis, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis. Narrative analysis is useful for understanding how individuals construct their identities, make sense of their experiences, and communicate their values and beliefs.

Phenomenological Analysis

This method involves analyzing how individuals make sense of their experiences and the meanings they attach to them. Phenomenological analysis typically involves in-depth interviews with participants to explore their experiences in detail. Phenomenological analysis is useful for understanding subjective experiences and for developing a rich understanding of human consciousness.

Comparative Analysis

This method involves comparing and contrasting data across different cases or groups to identify similarities and differences. Comparative analysis can be used to identify patterns or themes that are common across multiple cases, as well as to identify unique or distinctive features of individual cases. Comparative analysis is useful for understanding how social phenomena vary across different contexts and groups.

Applications of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has many applications across different fields and industries. Here are some examples of how qualitative research is used:

• Market Research: Qualitative research is often used in market research to understand consumer attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with consumers to gather insights into their experiences and perceptions of products and services.
• Health Care: Qualitative research is used in health care to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
• Education: Qualitative research is used in education to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. Researchers conduct classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
• Social Work : Qualitative research is used in social work to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
• Anthropology : Qualitative research is used in anthropology to understand different cultures and societies. Researchers conduct ethnographic studies and observe and interview members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
• Psychology : Qualitative research is used in psychology to understand human behavior and mental processes. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
• Public Policy : Qualitative research is used in public policy to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.

How to Conduct Qualitative Research

Here are some general steps for conducting qualitative research:

• Identify your research question: Qualitative research starts with a research question or set of questions that you want to explore. This question should be focused and specific, but also broad enough to allow for exploration and discovery.
• Select your research design: There are different types of qualitative research designs, including ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. You should select a design that aligns with your research question and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
• Recruit participants: Once you have your research question and design, you need to recruit participants. The number of participants you need will depend on your research design and the scope of your research. You can recruit participants through advertisements, social media, or through personal networks.
• Collect data: There are different methods for collecting qualitative data, including interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. You should select the method or methods that align with your research design and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
• Analyze data: Once you have collected your data, you need to analyze it. This involves reviewing your data, identifying patterns and themes, and developing codes to organize your data. You can use different software programs to help you analyze your data, or you can do it manually.
• Interpret data: Once you have analyzed your data, you need to interpret it. This involves making sense of the patterns and themes you have identified, and developing insights and conclusions that answer your research question. You should be guided by your research question and use your data to support your conclusions.
• Communicate results: Once you have interpreted your data, you need to communicate your results. This can be done through academic papers, presentations, or reports. You should be clear and concise in your communication, and use examples and quotes from your data to support your findings.

Examples of Qualitative Research

Here are some real-time examples of qualitative research:

• Customer Feedback: A company may conduct qualitative research to understand the feedback and experiences of its customers. This may involve conducting focus groups or one-on-one interviews with customers to gather insights into their attitudes, behaviors, and preferences.
• Healthcare : A healthcare provider may conduct qualitative research to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
• Education : An educational institution may conduct qualitative research to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. This may involve conducting classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
• Social Work: A social worker may conduct qualitative research to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
• Anthropology : An anthropologist may conduct qualitative research to understand different cultures and societies. This may involve conducting ethnographic studies and observing and interviewing members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
• Psychology : A psychologist may conduct qualitative research to understand human behavior and mental processes. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
• Public Policy: A government agency or non-profit organization may conduct qualitative research to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. This may involve conducting focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.

Purpose of Qualitative Research

The purpose of qualitative research is to explore and understand the subjective experiences, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research aims to provide in-depth, descriptive information that can help researchers develop insights and theories about complex social phenomena.

Qualitative research can serve multiple purposes, including:

• Exploring new or emerging phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring new or emerging phenomena, such as new technologies or social trends. This type of research can help researchers develop a deeper understanding of these phenomena and identify potential areas for further study.
• Understanding complex social phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring complex social phenomena, such as cultural beliefs, social norms, or political processes. This type of research can help researchers develop a more nuanced understanding of these phenomena and identify factors that may influence them.
• Generating new theories or hypotheses: Qualitative research can be useful for generating new theories or hypotheses about social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data about individuals’ experiences and perspectives, researchers can develop insights that may challenge existing theories or lead to new lines of inquiry.
• Providing context for quantitative data: Qualitative research can be useful for providing context for quantitative data. By gathering qualitative data alongside quantitative data, researchers can develop a more complete understanding of complex social phenomena and identify potential explanations for quantitative findings.

When to use Qualitative Research

Here are some situations where qualitative research may be appropriate:

• Exploring a new area: If little is known about a particular topic, qualitative research can help to identify key issues, generate hypotheses, and develop new theories.
• Understanding complex phenomena: Qualitative research can be used to investigate complex social, cultural, or organizational phenomena that are difficult to measure quantitatively.
• Investigating subjective experiences: Qualitative research is particularly useful for investigating the subjective experiences of individuals or groups, such as their attitudes, beliefs, values, or emotions.
• Conducting formative research: Qualitative research can be used in the early stages of a research project to develop research questions, identify potential research participants, and refine research methods.
• Evaluating interventions or programs: Qualitative research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or programs by collecting data on participants’ experiences, attitudes, and behaviors.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is characterized by several key features, including:

• Focus on subjective experience: Qualitative research is concerned with understanding the subjective experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Researchers aim to explore the meanings that people attach to their experiences and to understand the social and cultural factors that shape these meanings.
• Use of open-ended questions: Qualitative research relies on open-ended questions that allow participants to provide detailed, in-depth responses. Researchers seek to elicit rich, descriptive data that can provide insights into participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Sampling-based on purpose and diversity: Qualitative research often involves purposive sampling, in which participants are selected based on specific criteria related to the research question. Researchers may also seek to include participants with diverse experiences and perspectives to capture a range of viewpoints.
• Data collection through multiple methods: Qualitative research typically involves the use of multiple data collection methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation. This allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data from multiple sources, which can provide a more complete picture of participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Inductive data analysis: Qualitative research relies on inductive data analysis, in which researchers develop theories and insights based on the data rather than testing pre-existing hypotheses. Researchers use coding and thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data and to develop theories and explanations based on these patterns.
• Emphasis on researcher reflexivity: Qualitative research recognizes the importance of the researcher’s role in shaping the research process and outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own biases and assumptions and to be transparent about their role in the research process.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research offers several advantages over other research methods, including:

• Depth and detail: Qualitative research allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data that provides a deeper understanding of complex social phenomena. Through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation, researchers can gather detailed information about participants’ experiences and perspectives that may be missed by other research methods.
• Flexibility : Qualitative research is a flexible approach that allows researchers to adapt their methods to the research question and context. Researchers can adjust their research methods in real-time to gather more information or explore unexpected findings.
• Contextual understanding: Qualitative research is well-suited to exploring the social and cultural context in which individuals or groups are situated. Researchers can gather information about cultural norms, social structures, and historical events that may influence participants’ experiences and perspectives.
• Participant perspective : Qualitative research prioritizes the perspective of participants, allowing researchers to explore subjective experiences and understand the meanings that participants attach to their experiences.
• Theory development: Qualitative research can contribute to the development of new theories and insights about complex social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data and using inductive data analysis, researchers can develop new theories and explanations that may challenge existing understandings.
• Validity : Qualitative research can offer high validity by using multiple data collection methods, purposive and diverse sampling, and researcher reflexivity. This can help ensure that findings are credible and trustworthy.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research also has some limitations, including:

• Subjectivity : Qualitative research relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers, which can introduce bias into the research process. The researcher’s perspective, beliefs, and experiences can influence the way data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
• Limited generalizability: Qualitative research typically involves small, purposive samples that may not be representative of larger populations. This limits the generalizability of findings to other contexts or populations.
• Time-consuming: Qualitative research can be a time-consuming process, requiring significant resources for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
• Resource-intensive: Qualitative research may require more resources than other research methods, including specialized training for researchers, specialized software for data analysis, and transcription services.
• Limited reliability: Qualitative research may be less reliable than quantitative research, as it relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers. This can make it difficult to replicate findings or compare results across different studies.
• Ethics and confidentiality: Qualitative research involves collecting sensitive information from participants, which raises ethical concerns about confidentiality and informed consent. Researchers must take care to protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants and obtain informed consent.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Artificial intelligence in qualitative research methods

A one-day community-building gathering.

• Starts: 09:30, 26 April 2024
• Ends: 16:00, 26 April 2024
• Location: BI - campus Oslo, room: A2-Red 13
• Contact: Renate Kratochvil ([email protected])

The purpose of this event is to bring together qualitative researchers from different parts of Norway, other Nordic countries, and beyond. The main objective is to establish relationships, learn from each other, and build a community. 

During the day, you will hear from some prestigious scholars, learn what others are working on, receive (and give) feedback on work in progress, and socialize with like-minded colleagues. 

This year, our main focus will be on the utilization of AI and machine learning in qualitative research. The recent advancements in these technologies present an array of opportunities and challenges for qualitative researchers and their traditional skills, as they can automate  the processes of data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings. Through this event, we aim to delve deeper into the current hype surrounding AI and its possible implications for qualitative research. 

Established scholars, early career researchers, and PhD students from all parts of Norway, other Nordic countries, and beyond are welcome to attend.

Keynote speakers

Catherine Welch, Katharina Cepa, Heidi Karlsen and David Morgan.

Work in progress

If you want to receive feedback on your work in progress (any management topic),  please share a document of up to 2,000 words by April 16th. We welcome both early-stage ideas and proposals, as well as more developed drafts.

Participation is free, coffee & tea will be served.

The event is organized jointly by BI Qualitative Research Forum (Renate Kratochvil, Davide Nicolini & Victor Renza) and NHH (Inger Stensaker, Vidya Oruganti).

Provisional Programme

Room: A2 - Red 13

• Key notes by Catherine Welch (Trinity), Katharina Cepa (VU), Heidi Karlsen (BI) & David Morgan (Portland, zoom)
• Research speed dating
• Feedback on participants papers (Round  tables, any topic)
• AI Showcasing discussions

Share this article: