I.

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increased use of qualitative research methods in social sciences in recent years.
Once marginalized in theory, qualitative research methods are claiming their place in the arsenal of
social science inquiry, with more and more traditional research method textbooks devoting chapters
to it, and a growing number of researchers and disciplines engaging in qualitative research. The
phrase ‘‘qualitative research’’ started as an umbrella term for a variety of research methods and
techniques that could not be ‘‘quantified’’ for various reasons (inability to clearly formulate fuzzy
concepts; small number of observations; study of unique events; loosing essence in coding the
situation, etc.), but increasingly began to gravitate towards an umbrella term uniting various
research methods with nonpositivist epistemology.

There is no unanimity in scientific (and practicing) community on what exactly qualitative research
methods are, what are their inherent characteristics, what is their underlying epistemology (if there
is any), how compatible they are with quantitative methods, to what fields of human (scientific)
inquiry do they relate, what questions do they answer. Qualitative research methods are often used
to mean three concepts: (1) underlying research epistemology (i.e., methods based on postmodern,
constructivist or naturalistic paradigm of knowledge); (2) specific research strategy (e.g., research
design that aims more to interpret and reveal meanings that actors attach to their actions rather
than generalize causal relationships to the larger universe of events); and (3) specific techniques
that are not operating with numbers (e.g., interviewing). The domains specified by these definitions
often overlap, but are not identical—qualitative methods can be applied in a research based on a
positivistic paradigm (e.g., ethnography applied to structuralist anthropology); and research based
on constructivist or naturalistic paradigm can employ simple quantitative techniques such as
tabulations or frequency counts (e.g., content analysis); or rigorous quantitative techniques can
contain explicit articulation of researchers subjective preferences (e.g., Q-methodology). It is also
important to note the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy in research methods is not very accurate:
what is not quantitative is not necessarily qualitative and vice versa. For example, although renown
economists such as R. Coase and A. O. Hirschman did not employ statistical or mathematical
techniques and did not operate with empirical data in their classic studies, one still cannot call the
logic or the method they employed as qualitative in any of the senses identified above. Very often
this type of knowledge is called ordinary knowledge (Cohen and Lindblom, 1979). It is also often
correctly argued that any type of human argument contains interpretive elements, and quantitative
research designs is not void of it, either. For example, Herbert M. Kritzer (1996) identifies three
levels at which interpretive process operates in quantitative research. Qualitative research is being
applied not only in social sciences, but also in such ‘‘technical’’ fields as information science or
management information systems (Myers, 1996).

In recent decades the appeal of non positivistic qualitative methods have increased partly because
of the following developments: (1) with the advent of information age, bombardment with images
and texts created layers of illusory, virtual reality, that undermined the commonsense positivistic
notions of reality, objectivity and causality; and (2) the doctrine of analytical positivism
(neopositivism) came under fierce attacks from critical theorists, post-structuralist and post-modern
theorists, who began to ask value-laden questions and question underlying assumptions of
‘‘neutral’’ scientific assumptions (e.g., Rosenau, 1992). The rise of qualitative methods thus was
stemming from the failures of conventional social science to answer certain questions (as many felt,
partly because the right questions were never asked); and the increasing attacks on philosophical
underpinnings of traditional science (i.e., positivism). This led the researchers to look elsewhere for
answers. As a result, qualitative methods can be seen as crossdisciplinary: they often combine
knowledge from different fields and apply to an increasing number of fields and topics. As opposed
to quantitative methods, which were borrowed by social science from natural sciences such as
physics and chemistry, qualitative methods came to social sciences from two different sources—arts
and humanities and clinical research (Chenail, 1993), where the emphasis was more on
interpretation of human cognition and action (even if it is one particular person) rather than on
objective and veritable generalization of confidently established causal relationships from examined
group to a wider population. Another important aspect of this new approach was the emphasis on
practice—on conducting naturalistic (i.e. unobtrusive research in natural settings, without
manipulation) research (very often trying to change the object of the study), as opposed to
‘‘objective’’ positivistic research which was criticized as detached, ivory-tower-type of enterprise
aimed more at proving existing dogmas than solving actual problems.

It is not the intention of this essay to provide a comprehensive coverage and full classification of
qualitative research methods. It is a far more daunting task that will require more erudition and
experience than I am able to provide. Perhaps, the best volume to refer to for this purpose is the
Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (1994). Neither it is
the aim of this essay to lay down a practical guide of conducting qualitative research. One article, I
am afraid, will not suffice for it. Readers interested in more down-to-earth, clearly written practical
guides can turn to growing number of volumes from Sage Publications (e.g., Strauss and Corbin,
1990; Patton, 1987, 1990; Marshall and Rossman, 1995; Miles and Huberman, 1984, 1994), as well
as examine classical studies in qualitative research that clearly describe employed procedures (e.g.,
Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This essay will rather try to sketch a brief roadmap of different paradigms
of qualitative research, discuss various strategies and tools of qualitative inquiry and their possible
combination with quantitative methods. As everything else connected with qualitative research,
nothing in this article can be claimed to be exhaustive and/or objectively true.

II. DEFINITIONS

Qualitative research defies easy classification. It is a loose assortment of complex and

interconnected concepts, terms and assumptions that crosscut disciplines, fields and subjects
matter, and which assume different meanings in different historical contexts (Denzin and Lincoln,
1994: 1–2). Qualitative research is often described by listing its diverse methods and the fields that
they are applied to. Among often mentioned categories are ethnography; participant observation;
ethnology; textual, hermeneutic, semiotic, and narrative analysis; analysis of archival and material
culture; discourse and communication analysis; analysis through symbolic interactionism;
ethnomethodology; psychoanalysis; feminist inquiry; phenomenology; phenomenography; survey
research; deconstruction; action research and participatory action research. Qualitative research is
not confined to certain discipline, and is employed in wide range of disciplines such as anthropology;
education; sociology; literary and art studies; cultural studies; history; archaeology; biography;
program evaluation; clinical studies; medicine; psychiatry; nursing; family therapy; and cognitive and
ecological psychology (e.g., Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Marshall and Rossman, 1995).
Perhaps, the most significant conclusion that one can draw from this diversity of methods and fields
is that the most important tool of qualitative research is the researcher him/herself, who employs
multiple methodologies and very often has multi-focus tasks. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue,
human beings possess unique qualities as an instrument of research—they have the capacity to
respond to a wide range of hints, to make often unpredictable mental associations and references,
to see the phenomena from a holistic perspective, while detecting atypical features, to process data
on spot, and test out the new knowledge immediately. Many qualitative researchers speak about
the importance of what Barney Glaser (1978) labeled as ‘‘theoretical sensitivity.’’ Anselm Strauss
and Juliet Corbin define it as ‘‘the attribute of having insight, the ability to give meaning to data, the
capacity to understand, and capability to separate the pertinent from that which isn’t’’ (Strauss and
Corbin 1990: 42). Theoretical sensitivity can stem from mastery of literature, as well as professional
and personal experience. Qualitative research often implies multiple methodologies. For example, in
grounded theory approach, multitude of theories can be verified against existing data, when a new
perspective is being tested based on one’s conclusion of centrality of emergent categories. The
diversity of methodologies is often called bricolage, and the researcher a bricoleur—a person that
renown anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1966: 17) defined as a ‘‘Jack of all trades or a kind of
professional doit-yourself person.’’ Qualitative researchers by and large espouse a tolerant view of
the field and see variety of methods as equally important and able to provide important insights.
One important characteristic of qualitative research is the tendency toward triangulation—the act of
bringing more than one data source or more than one perspective to bear on a single point. Initially
started as triangulation of data—use of variety of sources for the research, the concept of
triangulation moved to include investigator triangulation (use of multiple researchers); theory
triangulation (use of multiple perspectives on a single set of data); methodological triangulation (use
of multiple methodologies for a single problem); interdisciplinary triangulation (looking at the same
problem from different vantage points) (Denzin, 1978; Janesick, 1994). Although triangulation is
highly desirable, it is also quite costly. It is important to note that the same tools of qualitative
research can vary in their meaning and relevance across different fields, depending on research
design, field of study and scientific paradigm. For example, use of ethnography by in cultural studies
will yield different results than if it was used in classic structuralist sociology. The first would focus
on the establishment of multiple meanings for various persons or subgroups within the studied
population, while the second will try to explore latent but real structures that define the behavior of
the community.

Based on this, many researchers distinguish between research techniques (tools) and methods
(strategies of inquiry). In this view, research method is qualitative if its intent and focus is one
interpretation and understanding rather than explaining and predicting (e.g. Erickson, 1986).
Understanding is seen as more contextual and specific, while explaining is seen more like laying
down lawlike patterns of phenomena under investigation that will apply in the future and similar
situations as well.1 For example, one can understand the politics of budgeting in the field of water
resources in the 1950s, but cannot explain the budgetary politics of water resources in the 1980s
based on that understanding: the context—the structure of the Congress, the clientele, the agency
leaders and the personnel, media awareness, mass communications, etc.—has fundamentally
changed for any outcomes to be predicted accurately according to earlier models. In essence, this
line of reasoning is an argument for defining qualitative research as a paradigm of research with
certain assumptions about ontology (reality), epistemology (knowledge) and methodology (tools).
This argumentation rejects the definition of qualitative research as addiction to methods (that many
would dismiss as ‘‘soft’’ science) and tries to picture qualitative research as an expression of non-
positivist scientific paradigm. This brings us to examination of competing paradigms of scientific
inquiry.