Qualitative Research Method When To Use
Qualitative Research Method When To Use
Qualitative Research Method When To Use
net/publication/290432694
Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them
CITATIONS READS
401 7,747
3 authors:
Sheryl de Lacey
Flinders University
60 PUBLICATIONS 1,288 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Participatory action research for health capability- a project ethnography in a community affected by HIV and AIDS View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Karin Hammarberg on 01 March 2016.
INVITED COMMENTARY
research using qualitative methods is home to the good, the bad and
Introduction the ugly. It is essential that reviewers know the difference. Rejection
In March 2015, an impressive set of guidelines for best practice on how to letters are hard to take but more often than not they are based on legit-
incorporate psychosocial care in routine infertility care was published by imate critique. However, from time to time it is obvious that the reviewer
the ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group has little grasp of what constitutes rigour or quality in qualitative research.
(ESHRE Psychology and Counselling Guideline Development Group, The first author (K.H.) recently submitted a paper that reported findings
2015). The authors report that the guidelines are based on a comprehen- from a qualitative study about fertility-related knowledge and
sive review of the literature and we congratulate them on their meticu- information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age. In
lous compilation of evidence into a clinically useful document. the rejection letter one of the reviewers (not from Human Reproduction)
However, when we read the methodology section, we were baffled lamented, ‘Even for a qualitative study, I would expect that some form of
and disappointed to find that evidence from research using qualitative confidence interval and paired t-tables analysis, etc. be used to analyse
methods was not included in the formulation of the guidelines. Despite the significance of results’. This comment reveals the reviewer’s inappro-
stating that ‘qualitative research has significant value to assess the lived priate application to qualitative research of criteria relevant only to quan-
experience of infertility and fertility treatment’, the group excluded this titative research.
body of evidence because qualitative research is ‘not generally In this commentary, we give illustrative examples of questions most
hypothesis-driven and not objective/neutral, as the researcher puts appropriately answered using qualitative methods and provide general
him/herself in the position of the participant to understand how the advice about how to appraise the scientific rigour of qualitative studies.
world is from the person’s perspective’. We hope this will help the journal’s reviewers and readers appreciate
Qualitative and quantitative research methods are often juxtaposed as the legitimate place of qualitative research and ensure we do not
representing two different world views. In quantitative circles, qualitative throw the baby out with the bath water by excluding or rejecting
research is commonly viewed with suspicion and considered lightweight papers simply because they report the results of qualitative studies.
because it involves small samples which may not be representative of the
broader population, it is seen as not objective, and the results are
assessed as biased by the researchers’ own experiences or opinions. In
When to use qualitative research
qualitative circles, quantitative research can be dismissed as over- In psychosocial research, ‘quantitative’ research methods are appropri-
simplifying individual experience in the cause of generalisation, failing to ate when ‘factual’ data are required to answer the research question;
acknowledge researcher biases and expectations in research design, when general or probability information is sought on opinions, attitudes,
and requiring guesswork to understand the human meaning of aggregate views, beliefs or preferences; when variables can be isolated and defined;
data. when variables can be linked to form hypotheses before data collection;
As social scientists who investigate psychosocial aspects of human re- and when the question or problem is known, clear and unambiguous.
production, we use qualitative and quantitative methods, separately or Quantitative methods can reveal, for example, what percentage of the
together, depending on the research question. The crucial part is to population supports assisted conception, their distribution by age,
know when to use what method. marital status, residential area and so on, as well as changes from one
The peer-review process is a pillar of scientific publishing. One of the survey to the next (Kovacs et al., 2012); the number of donors and
important roles of reviewers is to assess the scientific rigour of the studies donor siblings located by parents of donor-conceived children
from which authors draw their conclusions. If rigour is lacking, the paper (Freeman et al., 2009); and the relationship between the attitude of
should not be published. As with research using quantitative methods, donor-conceived people to learning of their donor insemination
& The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.
For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
Invited Commentary 499
conception and their family ‘type’ (one or two parents, lesbian or hetero- important to note that free text in surveys represents qualitative data
sexual parents; Beeson et al., 2011). but does not constitute qualitative research. Qualitative and quantitative
In contrast, ‘qualitative’ methods are used to answer questions about methods may be used together for corroboration (hoping for similar out-
experience, meaning and perspective, most often from the standpoint of comes from both methods), elaboration (using qualitative data to explain
the participant. These data are usually not amenable to counting or or interpret quantitative data, or to demonstrate how the quantitative
measuring. Qualitative research techniques include ‘small-group discus- findings apply in particular cases), complementarity (where the qualita-
sions’ for investigating beliefs, attitudes and concepts of normative be- tive and quantitative results differ but generate complementary insights)
haviour; ‘semi-structured interviews’, to seek views on a focused topic or contradiction (where qualitative and quantitative data lead to different
or, with key informants, for background information or an institutional conclusions). Each has its advantages and challenges (Brannen, 2005).
perspective; ‘in-depth interviews’ to understand a condition, experi-
ence, or event from a personal perspective; and ‘analysis of texts and
documents’, such as government reports, media articles, websites or
How to judge qualitative research
diaries, to learn about distributed or private knowledge. Qualitative research is gaining increased momentum in the clinical setting
Qualitative methods have been used to reveal, for example, potential and carries different criteria for evaluating its rigour or quality. Quantita-
problems in implementing a proposed trial of elective single embryo tive studies generally involve the systematic collection of data about a
transfer, where small-group discussions enabled staff to explain their phenomenon, using standardized measures and statistical analysis. In
conducted, procedural decisions, and details of data generation and collections may also take place to obtain maximum insight into sensitive
management should be transparent and explicit. A reviewer should be topics. For instance, the question of how decisions are made for embryo
able to follow the progression of events and decisions and understand disposition may involve sampling within the patient group as well as from
their logic because there is adequate description, explanation and justi- scientists, clinicians, counsellors and clinic administrators.
fication of the methodology and methods (Kitto et al., 2008)
Consistency
Credibility Consistency, or dependability of the results, is the criterion for assessing
Credibility is the criterion for evaluating the truth value or internal validity reliability. This does not mean that the same result would necessarily be
of qualitative research. A qualitative study is credible when its results, found in other contexts but that, given the same data, other researchers
presented with adequate descriptions of context, are recognizable to would find similar patterns. Researchers often seek maximum variation
people who share the experience and those who care for or treat in the experience of a phenomenon, not only to illuminate it but also
them. As the instrument in qualitative research, the researcher to discourage fulfilment of limited researcher expectations (for
defends its credibility through practices such as reflexivity (reflection example, negative cases or instances that do not fit the emerging inter-
on the influence of the researcher on the research), triangulation pretation or theory should be actively sought and explored). Qualitative
(where appropriate, answering the research question in several ways, researchers sometimes describe the processes by which verification of
Charmaz K. Grounded Theory in the 21st century; applications for Kirkman M, Rosenthal D, Johnson L. Families working it out: adolescents’
advancing social justice studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds). The views on communicating about donor-assisted conception. Hum Reprod
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications Inc., 2007;22:2318 – 2324.
2005. Kirkman M, Bourne K, Fisher J, Johnson L, Hammarberg K. Gamete donors’
Cohen D, Crabtree B. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring. Hum
controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med 2008;6:331–339. Reprod 2014;29:731 – 738.
de Lacey S. Parent identity and ‘virtual’ children: why patients discard rather Kitto S, Chesters J, Grbich C. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust 2008;
than donate unused embryos. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1661 – 1669. 188:243– 246.
de Lacey SL, Peterson K, McMillan J. Child interests in assisted reproductive Kovacs GT, Morgan G, Levine M, McCrann J. The Australian community
technology: how is the welfare principle applied in practice? Hum Reprod overwhelmingly approves IVF to treat subfertility, with increasing
2015;30:616 – 624. support over three decades. Aust N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol 2012;
Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Entering the field of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, 52:302– 304.
Lincoln YS (eds). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Leininger M. Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In:
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998,1– 34. Morse J (ed). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Sage, 1994,95– 115.
Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
critical perspective. Qual Res 2006;6:27 – 44. Publications, 1985.