Qualitative research

Qualitative research is a scientific method of observation to gather non-numerical data.[1] This type of research "refers to the
meanings, concepts definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and description of things" and not to their "counts or
measures". This research answers why and how a certain phenomenon may occur rather than how often.[2] Qualitative research
approaches are employed across many academic disciplines, focusing particularly on the human elements of the social and
natural sciences;[3] in less academic contexts, areas of application include qualitative market research, business, service
demonstrations by non-profits,[4] and journalism.[1]

As a field of study, qualitative approaches include research concepts and methods from multiple established academic fields. The
aim of a qualitative research project may vary with the disciplinary background, such as a psychologist seeking in-depth
understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior for example. Qualitative methods are best for
researching many of the why and how questions of human experience,[3] in making a decision for example (not just what, where,
when, or "who"); and have a strong basis in the field of sociology to understand government and social programs. Qualitative
research is widely used by political science, social work, and education researchers.[5][6]

In the conventional view of statisticians, qualitative methods produce explanations only of the particular cases studied (e.g., as
part of an ethnography of a newly implemented government program), any general conclusions beyond the study context are
considered tentative propositions (informed assertions), since the general propositions are not usually arrived at on the basis of
statistical theory. Quantitative methods are therefore needed, to seek mathematical evidence and justification for such hypotheses
for further research.

In contrast, a qualitative researcher might argue that understanding of a phenomenon or situation or event, comes from exploring
the totality of the situation (e.g., phenomenology, symbolic interactionism), often with access to large amounts of "hard data" of a
nonnumerical form. It may begin as a grounded theory approach with the researcher having no previous understanding of the
phenomenon; or the study may commence with propositions and proceed in a 'scientific and empirical way' throughout the
research process (e.g., Bogdan & Taylor, 1990).[7]

We can distinguish between those which follow the logic of quantitative methods in their rules and criteria and
make generalizations in a numerical sense (i. e. from numerous cases to more numerous cases), and those clearly
qualitative methods where interpretations and generalizations are not based on the frequency of occurrence of
certain social phenomena but on a logic of generalizing from an individual case, whether this case is a personal
biography, an organization or a particular milieu or social setting; this includes making microscopic and thick
descriptions (see Geertz 1973) of the phenomena in which we are interested, likewise with the aim of generalizing
from an individual case.

— Gabriele Rosenthal, (2018: 13): Interpretive Social Research. An Introduction.

Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.

A popular method of qualitative research is the case study (Stake 1995,[8] Yin 1989[9]), which examines in depth 'purposive
samples' to better understand a phenomenon (e.g., support to families; Racino, 1999);[10] the case study method exemplifies the
qualitative researchers' preference for depth, detail, and context, often working with smaller and more focused samples, compared
with the large samples of primary interest to statistical researchers seeking general laws.[3]
Qualitative methods are an integral component of the five angles of analysis fostered by the data percolation methodology.[11]
These methods may be used alongside quantitative methods, scholarly or lay reviews of the literature, interviews with experts,
and computer simulation, as part of multimethod attitude to data collection and analysis (called Triangulation).[3]

To help navigate the heterogeneous landscape of qualitative research, one can further think of qualitative inquiry in terms of
'means' and 'orientation'.[12] In particular, one could argue that qualitative researchers often reject natural science models of truth,
prefer inductive, hypothesis-generating research processes and procedures (over hypothesis-testing models), are oriented towards
investigations of meaning(s) rather than behaviour, and prefer data in the form of words and images, that are ideally naturally
derived (e.g. in-depth observation as opposed to experimentation).[13]

Contents
History
Data collection, analysis and field research design
Specialized uses
Data analysis
Interpretive techniques
Coding
Recursive abstraction
Coding and "thinking"
Distinct qualitative paradigms
Trustworthiness
Journals
In psychology
See also
References
Further reading
External links
Videos

History
Sociologist Earl Babbie notes that qualitative research is "at once very old and very new."[1] He documents that qualitative
methods have been used for several centuries, but anthropologists brought qualitative field research methods to the forefront
through their 19th century observations of preliterate societies.

Robert Bogdan in his advanced courses on qualitative research traces the history of the development of the fields, and their
particular relevance to disability and including the work of his colleague Robert Edgerton and a founder of participant
observation, Howard S. Becker.[14] As Robert Bogdan and Sari Biklen describe in their education text, "historians of qualitative
research have never, for instance, included Freud or Piaget as developers of the qualitative approach, yet both relied on case
studies, observations and indepth interviewing".[15]

In the early 1900s, some researchers rejected positivism, the theoretical idea that there is an objective world which we can gather
data from and "verify" this data through empiricism. These researchers embraced a qualitative research paradigm, attempting to
make qualitative research as "rigorous" as quantitative research and creating myriad methods for qualitative research. Such
developments were necessary as qualitative researchers won national center awards, in collaboration with their research
colleagues at other universities and departments; and university administrations funded Ph.D.s in both arenas through the ensuing
decades. Most theoretical constructs involve a process of qualitative analysis and understanding, and construction of these
concepts (e.g., Wolfensberger's social role valorization theories).[16]

In the 1970s and 1980s, the increasing ubiquity of computers aided in qualitative analyses, several journals with a qualitative
focus emerged, and postpositivism gained recognition in the academy. In the late 1980s, questions of identity emerged, including
issues of race, class, gender, and discourse communities, leading to research and writing becoming more reflexive. Throughout
the 1990s, the concept of a passive observer/researcher was rejected, and qualitative research became more participatory and
activist-oriented with support from the federal branches, such as the National Institute on Disability Research and Rehabilitation
(NIDRR) of the US Department of Education (e.g., Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers for Family and Community
Living, 1990). Also, during this time, researchers began to use mixed-method approaches, indicating a shift in thinking of
qualitative and quantitative methods as intrinsically incompatible. However, this history is not apolitical, as this has ushered in a
politics of "evidence" (e.g., evidence-based practices in health and human services) and what can count as "scientific" research in
scholarship, a current, ongoing debate in the academy.

Data collection, analysis and field research design

Qualitative researchers face many choices for techniques to generate data ranging from grounded theory[17] development and
practice, narratology, storytelling, transcript poetry, biographical narrative interviews, classical ethnography, state or
governmental studies, research and service demonstrations, focus groups, case studies, participant observation, qualitative review
of statistics in order to predict future happenings, or shadowing, among many others. Qualitative methods are used in various
methodological approaches, such as action research which has sociological basis, or actor-network theory.

The interview (structured, semi-structured or unstructured) is a common source of data on the qualities/categories of interest.
Other sources include focus groups, observation (without a predefined theory like statistical theory in mind for example),
reflective field notes, texts, pictures, photographs and other images, interactions and practice captured on audio or video
recordings, public (e.g. official) personal documents, historical items, and websites and social media.[18][19][20][1]

To analyse qualitative data, the researcher seeks meaning from all of the data that is available. The data may be categorized and
sorted into patterns (i.e., pattern or thematic analyses) as the primary basis for organizing and reporting the study findings (e.g.,
activities in the home; interactions with government).[21] Qualitative researchers, often associated with the education field,
typically rely on the following methods for gathering information: Participant Observation, Non-participant Observation, Field
Notes, Reflexive Journals, Biographical Narrative Interviews, Structured Interview, Semi-structured Interview, Unstructured
Interview, and Analysis of documents and materials.[22][23][24]

The ways of participating and observing can vary widely from setting to setting as exemplified by Helen Schwartzman's primer
on Ethnography in Organizations (1993).[25] or Anne Copeland and Kathleen White's "Studying Families" (1991).[26] Participant
observation is a strategy of reflexive learning, not a single method of observing.[27] and has been described as a continuum of
between participation and observation. In participant observation[28] researchers typically become members of a culture, group,
or setting, and adopt roles to conform to that setting. In doing so, the aim is for the researcher to gain a closer insight into the
culture's practices, motivations, and emotions. It is argued that the researchers' ability to understand the experiences of the culture
may be inhibited if they observe without participating.

The data that is obtained is streamlined (texts of thousands of pages in length) to a definite theme or pattern, or representation of a
theory or systemic issue or approach. This step in a theoretical analysis or data analytic technique is further worked on (e.g.,
gender analysis may be conducted; comparative policy analysis may be developed). An alternative research hypothesis is
generated which finally provides the basis of the research statement for continuing work in the fields.
Some distinctive qualitative methods are the use of focus groups and key informant interviews, the latter often identified through
sophisticated and sometimes, elitist, snowballing techniques. The focus group technique (e.g., Morgan, 1988)[29] involves a
moderator facilitating a small group discussion between selected individuals on a particular topic, with video and handscribed
data recorded, and is useful in a coordinated research approach studying phenomenon in diverse ways in different environments
with distinct stakeholders often excluded from traditional processes. This method is a particularly popular in market research and
testing new initiatives with users/workers.

The research then must be "written up" into a report, book chapter, journal paper, thesis or dissertation, using descriptions, quotes
from participants, charts and tables to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the study findings.

In qualitative research, the idea of recursivity is expressed in terms of the nature of its research procedures, which may be
contrasted with experimental forms of research design. From the experimental perspective, its major stages of research (data
collection, data analysis, discussion of the data in context of the literature, and drawing conclusions) should be each undertaken
once (or at most a small number of times) in a research study. In qualitative research however, all of the four stages above may be
undertaken repeatedly until one or more specific stopping conditions are met, reflecting a nonstatic attitude to the planning and
design of research activities. An example of this dynamicism might be when the qualitative researcher unexpectedly changes their
research focus or design midway through a research study, based on their 1st interim data analysis, and then makes further
unplanned changes again based on a 2nd interim data analysis; this would be a terrible thing to do from the perspective of an
(predefined) experimental study of the same thing. Qualitative researchers would argue that their recursivity in developing the
relevant evidence and reasoning, enables the researcher to be more open to unexpected results, more open to the potential of
building new constructs, and the possibility of integrating them with the explanations developed continuously throughout a
study.[3]

Specialized uses
Qualitative methods are often part of survey methodology, including telephone surveys and consumer satisfaction surveys.

In fields that study households, a much debated topic is whether interviews should be conducted individually or collectively (e.g.
as couple interviews).[30][31]

One traditional and specialized form of qualitative research is called cognitive testing or pilot testing which is used in the
development of quantitative survey items. Survey items are piloted on study participants to test the reliability and validity of the
items. This approach is similar to psychological testing using an intelligence test like the WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Survey) in which the interviewer records "qualitative" (i.e., clinical observations)throughout the testing process. Qualitative
research is often useful in a sociological lens. Although often ignored, qualitative research is of great value to sociological studies
that can shed light on the intricacies in the functionality of society and human interaction.

There are several different research approaches, or research designs, that qualitative researchers use.[32][33] In the academic
social sciences, the most frequently used qualitative research approaches include the following points:

1. Basic/generic/pragmatic qualitative research, which involves using an eclectic approach taken up to best match
the research question at hand. This is often called the mixed-method approach.
2. Ethnographic research. An example of applied ethnographic research is the study of a particular culture and their
understanding of the role of a particular disease in their cultural framework.
3. Grounded theory is an inductive type of research, based or "grounded" in the observations or data from which it
was developed; it uses a variety of data sources, including quantitative data, review of records, interviews,
observation and surveys.[34]
4. Phenomenology describes the "subjective reality" of an event, as perceived by the study population; it is the
study of a phenomenon.[35]
5. Biographical research is aligned to the social interpretive paradigm of research and is concerned with the
reconstruction of life histories and the constitution of meaning based on biographical narratives and documents.
The starting point for this approach is the understanding of an individual biography in terms of its social
 constitution, as influenced by symbolic interactionism, phenomenological sociology of knowledge (Alfred Schütz,
Peter L. Berger, and Thomas Luckmann), and ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel).
6. Philosophical research is conducted by field experts within the boundaries of a specific field of study or
profession, the best qualified individual in any field of study to use an intellectual analysis, in order to clarify
definitions, identify ethics, or make a value judgment concerning an issue in their field of study their lives.
7. Critical Social Research, used by a researcher to understand how people communicate and develop symbolic
meanings.
8. Ethical Inquiry, an intellectual analysis of ethical problems. It includes the study of ethics as related to obligation,
rights, duty, right and wrong, choice etc.
9. Social science and Governmental Research to understand social services, government operations, and
recommendations (or not) regarding future developments and programs, including whether or not government
should be involved.
10. Activist research which aims to raise the views of the underprivileged or "underdogs" to prominence to the elite or
master classes, the latter who often control the public view or positions.
11. Foundational research, examines the foundations for a science, analyzes the beliefs, and develops ways to
specify how a knowledge base should change in light of new information.
12. Historical research allows one to discuss past and present events in the context of the present condition, and
allows one to reflect and provide possible answers to current issues and problems. Historical research helps us
in answering questions such as: Where have we come from, where are we, who are we now and where are we
going?
13. Visual ethnography. It uses visual methods of data collection, including photo, voice, photo elicitation, collaging,
drawing, and mapping. These techniques have been used extensively as a participatory qualitative technique
and to make the familiar strange.[36][37]
14. Autoethnography, the study of self, is a method of qualitative research in which the researcher uses their
personal experience to address an issue.

Data analysis

Interpretive techniques
As a form of qualitative inquiry,[3] students of interpretive inquiry (interpretivists) often disagree with the idea of theory-free
observation or knowledge. Whilst this crucial philosophical realization is also held by researchers in other fields, interpretivists
are often the most aggressive in taking this philosophical realization to its logical conclusions. For example, an interpretivist
researcher might believe in the existence of an objective reality 'out there', but argue that the social and educational reality we act
on the basis of never allows a single human subject to directly access the reality 'out there' in reality (this is a view shared by
constructivist philosophies).

To researchers outside the qualitative research field, the most common analysis of qualitative data is often perceived to be
observer impression. That is, expert or bystander observers examine the data, interpret it via forming an impression and report
their impression in a structured and sometimes quantitative form.

Coding
In general, coding refers to the act of associating meaningful ideas with the data of interest. In the context of qualitative research,
interpretative aspects of the coding process are often explicitly recognized, articulated, and celebrated; producing specific words
or short phrases believed to be useful abstractions over the data.

As an act of sense making, most coding requires the qualitative analyst to read the data and demarcate segments within it, which
may be done at multiple and different times throughout the data analysis process.[38] Each segment is labeled with a 'code' –
usually a word or short phrase suggesting how the associated data segments inform the research objectives. In contrast with more
quantitative forms of coding, mathematical ideas and forms are usually under-developed in a 'pure' qualitative data analysis.
When coding is complete, the analyst may prepare reports via a mix of: summarizing the prevalence of codes, discussing
similarities and differences in related codes across distinct original sources/contexts, or comparing the relationship between one
or more codes.

Some qualitative data that is highly structured (e.g., open-ended responses from surveys or tightly defined interview questions) is
typically coded with minimal additional segmentation of the data. Quantitative analysis based on codes from statistical theory is
typically the capstone analytical step for this type of qualitative data. A common form of coding is open-ended coding, while
other more structured techniques such as axial coding or integration have also been described and articulated (Strauss & Corbin,
1990).[39] Because qualitative analyses are often more inductive than the hypothesis testing nature of most quantitative research,
the existing 'theoretical sensitivity' (i.e., familiarity with established theories in the field) of the analyst becomes a more pressing
concern in producing an acceptable analysis.

Contemporary qualitative data analyses are often supported by computer programs (termed computer-assisted qualitative data
analysis software) used with or without the detailed hand coding and labeling of the past decades. These programs do not
supplant the interpretive nature of coding, but rather are aimed at enhancing analysts' efficiency at applying, retrieving, and
storing the codes generated from reading the data. Many programs enhance efficiency in editing and revision of codes, which
allow for more effective work sharing, peer review, recursive examination of data, and analysis of large datasets.

Common qualitative data analysis software includes:

MAXQDA (mixed methods)

QDA MINER
ATLAS.ti
Dedoose (mixed methods)
NVivo
A frequent criticism of quantitative coding approaches is against the transformation of qualitative data into predefined
(nomothetic) data structures, underpinned by 'objective properties'; the variety, richness, and individual characteristics of the
qualitative data is argued to be largely omitted from such data coding processes, rendering the original collection of qualitative
data somewhat pointless.

To defend against the criticism of too much subjective variability in the categories and relationships identified from data,
qualitative analysts respond by thoroughly articulating their definitions of codes and linking those codes soundly to the
underlying data, thereby preserving some of the richness that might be absent from a mere list of codes, whilst satisfying the need
for repeatable procedure held by experimentally oriented researchers.

Recursive abstraction
As defined by Leshan 2012,[40][41] this is a method of qualitative data analysis where qualitative datasets are analyzed without
coding. A common method here is recursive abstraction, where datasets are summarized; those summaries are therefore furthered
into summary and so on. The end result is a more compact summary that would have been difficult to accurately discern without
the preceding steps of distillation.

A frequent criticism of recursive abstraction is that the final conclusions are several times removed from the underlying data.
While it is true that poor initial summaries will certainly yield an inaccurate final report, qualitative analysts can respond to this
criticism. They do so, like those using coding method, by documenting the reasoning behind each summary step, citing examples
from the data where statements were included and where statements were excluded from the intermediate summary.

Coding and "thinking"

Some data analysis techniques rely on using computers to scan and reduce large sets of qualitative data. At their most basic level,
numerical coding relies on counting words, phrases, or coincidences of tokens within the data; other similar techniques are the
analyses of phrases and exchanges in conversational analyses. Often referred to as content analysis, a basic structural building
block to conceptual analysis, the technique utilizes mixed methodology to unpack both small and large corpuses. Content analysis
is frequently used in sociology to explore relationships, such as the change in perceptions of race over time (Morning 2008), or
the lifestyles of temporal contractors (Evans, et al. 2004).[42][43] Content analysis techniques thus help to provide broader output
for a larger, more accurate conceptual analysis.

Mechanical techniques are particularly well-suited for a few scenarios. One such scenario is for datasets that are simply too large
for a human to effectively analyze, or where analysis of them would be cost prohibitive relative to the value of information they
contain. Another scenario is when the chief value of a dataset is the extent to which it contains "red flags" (e.g., searching for
reports of certain adverse events within a lengthy journal dataset from patients in a clinical trial) or "green flags" (e.g., searching
for mentions of your brand in positive reviews of marketplace products). Many researchers would consider these procedures on
their data sets to be misuse of their data collection and purposes.

A frequent criticism of mechanical techniques is the absence of a human interpreter; computer analysis is relatively new having
arrived in the late 1980s to the university sectors. And while masters of these methods are able to write sophisticated software to
mimic some human decisions, the bulk of the "analysis" is still nonhuman. Analysts respond by proving the value of their
methods relative to either a) hiring and training a human team to analyze the data or b) by letting the data go untouched, leaving
any actionable nuggets undiscovered; almost all coding schemes indicate probably studies for further research.

Data sets and their analyses must also be written up, reviewed by other researchers, circulated for comments, and finalized for
public review. Numerical coding must be available in the published articles, if the methodology and findings are to be compared
across research studies in traditional literature review and recommendation formats.

Distinct qualitative paradigms

Contemporary qualitative research has been conducted using a large number of paradigms that influence conceptual and
metatheoretical concerns of legitimacy, control, data analysis, ontology, and epistemology, among others. Qualitative research
conducted in the twenty-first century has been characterized by a distinct turn toward more interpretive, postmodern, and critical
practices.[44] Guba and Lincoln (2005) identify five main paradigms of contemporary qualitative research: positivism,
postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory/cooperative paradigms.[44] Each of the paradigms listed by
Guba and Lincoln are characterized by axiomatic differences in axiology, intended action/impact of research, control of research
process/outcomes, relationship to foundations of truth and knowledge, validity and trust (see below), textual representation and
voice of the researcher and research participants, and commensurability with other paradigms. In particular, commensurability
involves the extent to which concerns from 2 paradigms e.g., "can be retrofitted to each other in ways that make the simultaneous
practice of both possible".[45] Positivist and post positivist paradigms share commensurable assumptions, but are largely
incommensurable with critical, constructivist, and participatory paradigms of research and knowledge. Likewise, critical,
constructivist, and participatory paradigms are commensurable on certain issues (e.g., the intended action and textual
representation of research).

Qualitative research in the 2000s has also been characterized by concern with everyday categorization and ordinary storytelling.
This "narrative turn" is producing an enormous literature as researchers present sensitizing concepts and perspectives that bear
especially on narrative practice, which centers on the circumstances and communicative actions of storytelling. Catherine
Riessman (1993) and Gubrium and Holstein (2009) provide analytic strategies, and Holstein and Gubrium (2012) present the
variety of approaches in recent comprehensive texts. More recent developments in narrative practice has increasingly taken up the
issue of institutional conditioning of such practices (see Gubrium and Holstein 2000).
However, not all scholars agree on the usefulness of paradigms. A critical view of understanding qualitative inquiry vis-à-vis
paradigms has been recently put forth by Pernecky (2016),[46] who has argued that problems arise when paradigms are
"interpreted in a rigid fashion and compartmentalized into static schemata" (p. 18). It is therefore more fruitful to think in terms of
flows and continuums, and even embrace a post-paradigmatic qualitative research. In his words:

"The problem with laying down prescriptive rules about what qualitative research is and how it ought to proceed
lies in the narrowing of the possibilities of an abundant and constantly devolving body of philosophical thought.
When we accept paradigms uncritically as the ‘givens’, qualitative knowledge becomes habituated, and
paradigms grow into hegemonic systems of organization (Pernecky, 2016, p. 194)".

Trustworthiness
A central issue in qualitative research is trustworthiness (also known as credibility, or in quantitative studies, validity). There are
many different ways of establishing trustworthiness, including: member check, interviewer corroboration, peer debriefing,
prolonged engagement, negative case analysis, auditability, confirmability, bracketing, and balance. Most of these methods are
described in Lincoln and Guba (1985).[47] As exemplified by researchers Preston Teeter and Jorgen Sandberg, data triangulation
and eliciting examples of interviewee accounts are two of the most commonly used methods of establishing trustworthiness in
qualitative studies.[48] Dependability is equivalent to the notion of reliability in quantitative methods and is the extent to which
two or more people are likely to come to the same conclusions by examining the same evidence. Again, Lincoln and Guba (1985)
is the salient reference.

Journals
By the end of the 1970s many leading journals began to publish qualitative research articles[49] and several new journals emerged
which published only qualitative research studies and articles about qualitative research methods.[50] In the 1980s and 1990s, the
new qualitative research journals became more multidisciplinary in focus moving beyond qualitative research's traditional
disciplinary roots of anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.[50] In the late 1980s to 1990s, early academic articles emerged
beginning the transformation from institutional studies (e.g., Taylor's "Let them eat programs") to studies of community,
community services and community life reviewed and cited in professional journals.[51][52] These studies ranged from extremely
controversial concerns involving the death penalty and disability (Bogdan, 1995)[53] to the efforts of families with service
providers (O'Connor, 1995)[54] to the government divisions which regulate families by "coming to take" the children away
(Taylor, 1995).[55]

In psychology
Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of scientific psychology, was one of the first psychologists to conduct qualitative research. Early
examples of his qualitative research were published in 1900 through 1920, in his 10-volume study, Völkerpsychologie (translated
to: Social Psychology). Wundt advocated the strong relation between psychology and philosophy. He believed that there was a
gap between psychology and quantitative research that could only be filled by conducting qualitative research. Qualitative
research dove into aspects of human life that could not adequately be covered by quantitative research; aspects such as culture,
expression, beliefs, morality and imagination.[56]

There are records of qualitative research being used in psychology before World War II, but prior to the 1950s, these methods
were viewed as invalid. Owing to this, many of the psychologists who practiced qualitative research denied the usage of such
methods or apologized for doing so. It was not until the late 20th century when qualitative research was accepted in elements of
psychology though it remains controversial. The excitement about the groundbreaking form of research was short-lived as few
novel findings emerged which gained attention. Community psychologists felt they didn't get the recognition they deserved.[56] A
selection of autobiographical narratives of community psychologists can be found in "Six Community Psychologists Tell Their
Stories: History, Contexts and Narratives" (Kelly & Song, 2004), including the well known Julian Rappaport.[57]

See also
Living educational theory
Hermeneutics
Participatory action research
Quantitative research
Real world data

References
1. Babbie, Earl (2014). The Basics of Social Research (6th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage. pp. 303–
04. ISBN 9781133594147. OCLC 824081715 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/824081715).
2. Berg, Bruce Lawrence; Lune, Howard (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (8th ed.).
Boston. p. 3. ISBN 9780205809387. OCLC 732318614 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/732318614).
3. Given, L. M., ed. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications.
4. Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Yvonna S., eds. (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-7619-2757-0.
5. Alasuutari, Pertti (2010). "The rise and relevance of qualitative research". International Journal of Social
Research Methodology. 13 (2): 139–55. doi:10.1080/13645570902966056 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13645570
902966056).
6. "QUALITI" (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/qualiti/PubSocMethJourn.html). cardiff.ac.uk.
7. Bogdan, R.; Taylor, S. (1987). "Looking at the bright side: A positive approach to qualitative policy and evaluation
research". Qualitative Sociology. 13 (2): 183–192. doi:10.1007/BF00989686 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF0098
9686).
8. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Yin, R. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (https://books.google.com/books?
id=gxy2AAAAIAAJ). Newbury Park, California: Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-3470-2.
10. Racino, J. (1999). Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=qDavoDQiH-QC). London: Haworth Press. ISBN 978-0-7890-0597-7.
11. Mesly, Olivier (2015). Creating Models in Psychological Research. Springer Psychology. ISBN 978-3-319-15752-
8.
12. Pernecky, T. (2016). Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.
13. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Data (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
14. Becker, H. S. (1970). "Whose Side Are We On?" (https://books.google.com/books?id=StGqxHrNhrMC&pg=PA12
3). Sociological Work: Method and Substance. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 123–134. ISBN 978-0-87855-630-4.
15. Bogdan, R. C.; Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=wIOcAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA14). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-205-
07695-6.
16. Wolfensberger, W. (1994). "A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization as High-Order Concept for Structuring
Human Services" (2nd Edition). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and
Change Agentry, Syracuse University.
17. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.I. (1967). "The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research".
NY, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.
18. Savin-Baden, M.; Major, C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
19. Taylor, S. J.; Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings (2nd
ed.). Singapore: John Wiley and Sons.
20. Murphy, E; Dingwall, R (2003). Qualitative methods and health policy research (1st edition). Routledge (reprinted
as an e-book in 2017).
21. Racino, J.; O'Connor, S. (1994). " 'A home of my own': Homes, neighborhoods and personal connections" (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=gnBHAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA381). In Hayden, M.; Abery, B. (eds.). Challenges for a
Service System in Transition: Ensuring Quality Community Experiences for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. pp. 381–403. ISBN 978-1-55766-125-8.
22. Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen B. (1998). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. ISBN 0-7619-1340-8
23. Bogdan, R.; Ksander, M. (1980). "Policy data as a social process: A qualitative approach to quantitative data".
Human Organization. 39 (4): 302–309. doi:10.17730/humo.39.4.x42432981487k54q (https://doi.org/10.17730%2
Fhumo.39.4.x42432981487k54q).
24. Rosenthal, Gabriele (2018). Social Interpretive Research. An Introduction (https://univerlag.uni-goettingen.de/han
dle/3/isbn-978-3-86395-374-4). Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. ISBN 978-3-86395-374-4.
25. Schwartzman, H.B. (1993). "Ethnography in Organizations". Qualitative Research Methods Series 27. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26. Copeland, A.P. (1991). "Studying Families". Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 27. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002) Qualitative communication research methods: Second edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN 0-7619-2493-0
28. "Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide" (http://www.techsociety.com/cal/soc190/fssba200
9/ParticipantObservation.pdf) (PDF). techsociety.com. Retrieved 7 October 2010.
29. Morgan, D. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (https://books.google.com/books?id=8dJ8AAAAIAAJ).
Qualitative Research Methods Series. 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-3208-1.
30. Valentine, G (1999). "Doing household research: Interviewing couples together and apart". Area. 31 (1): 67–74.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.1999.tb00172.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1475-4762.1999.tb00172.x).
31. Bjørnholt, M; Farstad, G.R. (2012). " 'Am I rambling?' On the advantages of interviewing couples together" (http://
www.margunnbjornholt.no/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Am_I_rambling_on_the_advantages_of_interviewing_co
uples_together.pdf) (PDF). Qualitative Research. 14 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1177/1468794112459671 (https://doi.org/1
0.1177%2F1468794112459671).
32. Creswell, John (2006). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Sage.
33. Creswell, John (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.
34. Ralph, N.; Birks, M.; Chapman, Y. (29 September 2014). "Contextual Positioning: Using Documents as Extant
Data in Grounded Theory Research". SAGE Open. 4 (3): 215824401455242. doi:10.1177/2158244014552425 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244014552425).
35. Gill, M. J. (2014). The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research. Organizational Research
Methods, 17:2, 118-137.
36. Mannay, D. 2013. ‘Who put that on there... why why why?:’ Power games and participatory techniques of visual
data production. Visual Studies, 28 (2), pp.136-146
37. Mannay, D. (2010). "Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more
perceptible?" (http://orca.cf.ac.uk/15610/1/MANNAY%20Making%20the%20familiar%20strange%20-%20%20pos
t%20print%20version%5B1%5D.pdf) (PDF). Qualitative Research. 10 (1): 91–111.
doi:10.1177/1468794109348684 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468794109348684).
38. Saladana, Johnny (2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage. ISBN 978-1446247372.
39. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
New Delhi: Sage.
40. Leshan, D. (2012). Strategic communication. London: Pangpang. Unknown.
41. "A Six Step Guide to Using Recursive Abstraction Applied to the Qualitative Analysis of Interview Data" (http://epr
ints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21367/). Retrieved 6 April 2018.
42. Morning, Ann (2008). "Reconstructing Race in Science and Society: Biology Textbooks, 1952-2002". American
Journal of Sociology.
43. Evans, James (2004). "Beach Time, Bridge Time and Billable Hours: The Temporal Structure of Temporal
Contracting" (http://web.stanford.edu/group/WTO/cgi-bin/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/pub_old/Evans_2004.pdf)
(PDF). Administrative Science Quarterly. 49 (1): 1–38. JSTOR 4131454 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4131454).
44. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). "Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences" In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), pp. 191-215. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3
45. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). "Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging influences" (p.
200). In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), pp. 191-215.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3
46. Pernecky, T. (2016). Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.
47. Lincoln Y and Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
48. Teeter, Preston; Sandberg, Jorgen (2016). "Constraining or Enabling Green Capability Development? How Policy
Uncertainty Affects Organizational Responses to Flexible Environmental Regulations". British Journal of
Management. 28 (4): 649–665. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12188 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8551.12188).
49. Loseke, Donileen R. & Cahil, Spencer E. (2007). "Publishing qualitative manuscripts: Lessons learned". In C.
Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: Concise Paperback
Edition, pp. 491-506. London: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-3420-6
50. Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2005). "Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research". In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), pp. 1-
33. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-2757-3
51. Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R., & Racino, J. (1991). Life in the Community: Case Studies of Organizations Serving
People with Developmental Disabilities in the Community. Baltimore, ND: Paul H. Brookes.
52. Taylor, S.J.,Bogdan, R., & Lutfiyya, Z.M. (1995). The Variety of Community Experiences: Qualitative Studies of
Family and Community Life. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
53. Bogdan, R. (1995). "A simple farmer accused of murder: The case of Delbert Ward. In. S.J.Taylor, R. Bogdan, &
Z.M. Lutfiyya, The Variety of Community Experience: Qualitative Studies of Family and Community Life(pp.79-
100). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
54. O'Connor, S. (1995). More than they bargained for: The meaning of support to families. In: S.J. Taylor, R. Bogdan
& Z.M. Lutfiyya, The Variety of Community Experiences: Qualitative Studies of Family and Community Life.
(pp.193-210). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
55. Taylor, S.J. (1995). "Children's division is coming to take pictures: Family life and parenting in a family with
disabilities. In: S.Taylor, R. Bogdan, & Z.M. Lutfiyya, The Variety of Community Experiences: Qualitative Studies
of Family and Community Life. (pp.23-46). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
56. Wertz, Charmaz, McMullen. "Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded
Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry". 16-18. The Guilford Press: March 30,
2011. 1st ed. Print.
57. Kelly, J.G. & Song, A.V. (2004). "Six Community Psychologists Tell Their Story." Binghamton, NY: The Haworth
Press.

Further reading
Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1987). : context and meaning in social inquiry / edited by Richard Jessor, Anne Colby, and
Richard A. Shweder] OCLC 46597302 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/46597302)
Baškarada, S. (2014) "Qualitative Case Study Guidelines", in The Qualitative Report, 19(40): 1-25. Available from
[1] (http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/baskarada24.pdf)
Boas, Franz (1943). "Recent anthropology". Science. 98 (2546): 311–314, 334–337.
doi:10.1126/science.98.2546.334 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.98.2546.334). PMID 17794461 (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17794461).
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of qualitative research ( 4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
DeWalt, K. M. & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Fischer, C.T. (Ed.) (2005). Qualitative research methods for psychologists: Introduction through empirical studies.
Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-088470-4.
Franklin, M. I. (2012), "Understanding Research: Coping with the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide (http://www.routl
edge.com/books/details/9780415490801/)". London/New York. Routledge
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gubrium, J. F. and J. A. Holstein. (2000). "The New Language of Qualitative Method." New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gubrium, J. F. and J. A. Holstein (2009). "Analyzing Narrative Reality." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gubrium, J. F. and J. A. Holstein, eds. (2000). "Institutional Selves: Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World."
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hammersley, M. (2008) Questioning Qualitative Inquiry, London, Sage.
Hammersley, M. (2013) What is qualitative research?, London, Bloomsbury.
Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications
Holstein, J. A. and J. F. Gubrium, eds. (2012). "Varieties of Narrative Analysis." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaminski, Marek M. (2004). Games Prisoners Play. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-11721-7.
Mahoney, J; Goertz, G (2006). "A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research".
Political Analysis. 14 (3): 227–249. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.135.3256 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?d
oi=10.1.1.135.3256). doi:10.1093/pan/mpj017 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpan%2Fmpj017).
Malinowski, B. (1922/1961). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pamela Maykut, Richard Morehouse. 1994 Beginning Qualitative Research. Falmer Press.
Pernecky, T. (2016). Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualitative Research (https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/
epistemology-and-metaphysics-for-qualitative-research/book242187). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods ( 3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pawluch D. & Shaffir W. & Miall C. (2005). Doing Ethnography: Studying Everyday Life. Toronto, ON Canada:
Canadian Scholars' Press.
Racino, J. (1999). Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All." New York,
NY: Haworth Press (now Routledge imprint, Francis and Taylor, 2015).
Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, Pine Forge Press,
ISBN 0-8039-9021-9
Riessman, Catherine K. (1993). "Narrative Analysis." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, Gabriele (2018). Interpretive Social Research. An Introduction (https://www.univerlag.uni-goettingen.d
e/bitstream/handle/3/isbn-978-3-86395-374-4/rosenthal_interpretive.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). Göttingen,
Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C. (2013). "Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice."
London, Rutledge.
Silverman, David, (ed), (2011), "Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice". Third Edition.
London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Sage Publications
Stebbins, Robert A. (2001) Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, Steven J., Bogdan, Robert, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, Wiley, 1998, ISBN 0-471-
16868-8
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the field: on writing ethnography, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Ziman, John (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.

External links
www.qualitativephilosophy.com (http://qualitativephilosophy.com/)
 C.Wright Mills, On intellectual Craftsmanship, The Sociological Imagination,1959 (https://web.archive.org/web/20
080527231135/http://ddl.uwinnipeg.ca/res_des/files/readings/cwmills-intel_craft.pdf)
Participant Observation, Qualitative research methods: a Data collector's field guide (http://www.fhi360.org/resour
ce/qualitative-research-methods-data-collectors-field-guide)
Analyzing and Reporting Qualitative Market Research (https://web.archive.org/web/20130326175632/http://answ
ers.mheducation.com/marketing/marketing-research/analyzing-and-reporting-qualitative-market-research)
Overview of available QDA Software (http://www.sosciso.de/en/software/datenanalyse/qualitativ/)

Videos
Qualitative analysis, with a focus on interview data (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRL4PF2u9XA) on
YouTube
Living Theory Approach to Qualitative Action Research (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFl3PUrwG_8) on
YouTube
Yale University series by Leslie Curry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbdN_sLWl88&list=PLqHnHG5X2PXC
sCMyN3_EzugAF7GKN2poQ) on YouTube

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qualitative_research&oldid=903177802"

This page was last edited on 24 June 2019, at 02:54 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.