Qualitative Research Methods

Different Approaches to Research: Paradigms Each of the following approaches are different paradigms Paradigm: “an accepted set of theories, procedures, and assumptions about how researchers look at the world.” An “umbrella” under which individual theories are placed Two main paradigms: positivist and interpretive These perspectives bring different methodological approaches with them

Paradigms: Positivist View of reality: objective (one “reality”) Where practiced: associated most with natural sciences Most mass media research uses this approach Central concepts/research goals: quantification, hypotheses, objective measures; “quantitative” research Methods used: content analysis, surveys, experiments Role of researcher: completely independent of the actual research process Research setting: controlled/created environments Theory building: deductive

Paradigms: Interpretive Textbook’s use of “qualitative” research methods View of reality: subjective, no one “reality” Goal of research/view of the individual: Understand how people behave and/or interact in their everyday surroundings/settings Role of researcher: researcher is an/the instrument of the research process Methods used: focus groups, interviews, participant observation, ethnography Theory building: inductive

Qualitative v. Quantitative Research It’s not just about numbers v. no numbers! Different goals/purposes Quantitative: Systematic, data is generalizable to a larger population; breadth (wide range); many subjects Qualitative: Detail (depth) with fewer subjects; can only generalize within the sample studied

Qualitative Research (cont Qualitative Research (cont.): Observations, In-depth Interviews, Case Studies, Ethnographies, & Focus Groups

Participant Observation AKA…field observations. Observe phenomena (i.e., people) in as close to their natural setting as possible. Concerned with description and examination of phenomena How involved can you be as an observer? Depends on several factors: Goal of research project. Familiarity with group you are studying. Accessibility to group you are studying. Willingness of group to allow you to participate. Your level of comfort in the setting.

Dimensions of Participant Observation: The Site Setting: natural or contrived? Natural: More “real-world” behaviors and actions can be observed; “covert” However, raises ethical issues related to convert observation; however, this is not always a problem depending on the research purpose(s) Contrived: Gathering of people who know they are being observed However, how does your presence impact how “real” these participants are behaving? Is your presence a disruption?

Dimensions of Participant Observation: Access Role of the researcher: Observer or Participant? “Observer as Participant”: Researcher separated from the interactions of those being observed Advantages? Disadvantages? “Participant as Observer”: Researcher is an active participant in the observation setting May directly speak to participants and is “part of the action” Covert Observer: Group being observed does not know of the researcher’s presence

Dimensions of Participant Observation: Data recording and collection Structured: Audio? Video recording? Hand-written notes? Laptop? Diary keeping? How detailed? What will you be “observing?” Two types of notes produced from the observation experience: Condensed field notes: notes taken during the observation; usually some form of short hand. Expanded field notes: notes in a more narrative and understandable format; taken after you are away from the site (but not too long after). Unstructured: Often more exploratory; observe whatever is happening Specifics about observation not as specified Still will produce condensed and expanded field notes at the conclusion of the observation

Advantages of Participant Observation Useful for studying something that can’t be studied using any other methodology. Helps in the development of hypotheses and isolate independent and dependent variables. Can be used as a “stand-alone” method (esp. when quantification is difficult). Usually inexpensive. Opportunity to observe something in its natural setting.

Disadvantages of Participant Observation Cannot achieve external validity: Validation is difficult because of the idea of “representativeness” of the observation. Problems in sampling and procedures used in observing Reliance on participant’s perceptions and judgments (and their preconceived notions and ideas) Reactivity: Process of being observed can impact other’s behaviors So, what do you do? Use several observers to “cross-validate” the findings Triangulation: use multiple methods to explore a topic (all qualitative or a mix of quantitative and qualitative)

Focus Groups Group interview with a moderator (lead interviewer) Involve people (participants) Participants have certain characteristics that are important in their selection Yield qualitative data Data not generalizable to a larger population unless multiple/numerous focus groups are conducted Have a focused discussion

Steps in Focus Groups 1. Define the problem. 2. Select a sample. 3. Decide the number of groups that must be held. 4 & 5. Prepare the focus group protocol and develop a set of procedures to follow. 6. Conduct the focus group session. 7. Analyze data.

Uses of Focus Groups Can be used as a “stand alone” method Can be used as a supplementary method: starting point for follow-up data for another method (i.e., survey) Can be used in conjunction with other methods (i.e., triangulation)

Advantages of Focus Groups Answers “why” or “how.” Can be a good way to collect preliminary data/information about a topic. May be used as pilot studies Can be conducted in a short period of time. Can be cost-effective. Can allow for flexibility in question design, conversation, and follow-up. Group responses can be “more complete and less inhibited.”

Disadvantages of Focus Groups Participants talk too much or not enough. Unless “enough” focus groups are conducted, data cannot be generalized (thus, quantitative data cannot be collected). Cannot answer “how many” or “how much.” Ineffective focus group moderator who cannot relate to participants. Participants may not be representative of the population. Cannot generalize. Interviewer bias may be present. Data interpretation, especially between the interviewer and another researcher.

Characteristics of In-depth Interviews AKA…intensive interviews Used for: Use smaller samples Provide detail; last longer than “traditional” interviews (surveys, etc.) Can analyze “verbal” and “non-verbal” communication Lengthy observations can happen Fluid question design. Questions can be customized on the spot for participants. Dependent on the interview climate/setting. A good interview depends on the rapport established between the interviewer and the participant. Usually involves a semi-structured interview protocol (guide); there are questions you want to ask, but you leave room for other topics to be addressed by participants.

Characteristics/Advantages of Case Studies Great to use when you want to delve into a topic/issue in great detail. Can suggest why something happened. Can draw from a wide variety and types of evidence. Sources: documents, historical artifacts, interviews, observations, surveys, etc. Also particularistic, descriptive, heuristic (understanding), inductive

Disadvantages of Case Studies Lack of perceived “scientific rigor.” So, what do you do? Be thorough in your research. Document evidence properly. Data cannot be generalized (statistically speaking). Difficult task to interpret an inordinate amount of data. Set your boundaries. What is the “case?” What is included? What is not? Data analysis. More on all qualitative data analysis to be discussed later.

Characteristics of Ethnographic Research Requires researchers to be in the field for long periods of time observing others. Used early in sociology and anthropology. Has expanded into other areas (political science, education, social work, communication). Relies on an assortment of data collection techniques. Researcher is in the “middle” of the experience. Studies issue from participant’s frame of reference.