You can find some useful tips in our how-to guide.
The maximum length of your abstract should be 250 words in total, including keywords and article classification (see the sections below).
Your submission should include up to 12 appropriate and short keywords that capture the principal topics of the paper. Our how to guide contains some practical guidance on choosing search-engine friendly keywords.
Please note, while we will always try to use the keywords you’ve suggested, the in-house editorial team may replace some of them with matching terms to ensure consistency across publications and improve your article’s visibility.
During the submission process, you will be asked to select a type for your paper; the options are listed below. If you don’t see an exact match, please choose the best fit:
You will also be asked to select a category for your paper. The options for this are listed below. If you don’t see an exact match, please choose the best fit:
Reports on any type of research undertaken by the author(s), including:
Covers any paper where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation. This includes journalistic and magazine-style pieces.
Describes and evaluates technical products, processes or services.
Focuses on developing hypotheses and is usually discursive. Covers philosophical discussions and comparative studies of other authors’ work and thinking.
Describes actual interventions or experiences within organizations. It can be subjective and doesn’t generally report on research. Also covers a description of a legal case or a hypothetical case study used as a teaching exercise.
This category should only be used if the main purpose of the paper is to annotate and/or critique the literature in a particular field. It could be a selective bibliography providing advice on information sources, or the paper may aim to cover the main contributors to the development of a topic and explore their different views.
Provides an overview or historical examination of some concept, technique or phenomenon. Papers are likely to be more descriptive or instructional (‘how to’ papers) than discursive.
Headings must be concise, with a clear indication of the required hierarchy.
The preferred format is for first level headings to be in bold, and subsequent sub-headings to be in medium italics.
Notes or endnotes should only be used if absolutely necessary. They should be identified in the text by consecutive numbers enclosed in square brackets. These numbers should then be listed, and explained, at the end of the article.
All figures (charts, diagrams, line drawings, webpages/screenshots, and photographic images) should be submitted electronically. Both colour and black and white files are accepted.
There are a few other important points to note:
Tables should be typed and submitted in a separate file to the main body of the article. The position of each table should be clearly labelled in the main body of the article with corresponding labels clearly shown in the table file. Tables should be numbered consecutively in Roman numerals (e.g. I, II, etc.).
Give each table a brief title. Ensure that any superscripts or asterisks are shown next to the relevant items and have explanations displayed as footnotes to the table, figure or plate.
Where tables, figures, appendices, and other additional content are supplementary to the article but not critical to the reader’s understanding of it, you can choose to host these supplementary files alongside your article on Insight, Emerald’s content-hosting platform (this is Emerald's recommended option as we are able to ensure the data remain accessible), or on an alternative trusted online repository. All supplementary material must be submitted prior to acceptance.
Emerald recommends that authors use the following two lists when searching for a suitable and trusted repository:
, you must submit these as separate files alongside your article. Files should be clearly labelled in such a way that makes it clear they are supplementary; Emerald recommends that the file name is descriptive and that it follows the format ‘Supplementary_material_appendix_1’ or ‘Supplementary tables’. All supplementary material must be mentioned at the appropriate moment in the main text of the article; there is no need to include the content of the file only the file name. A link to the supplementary material will be added to the article during production, and the material will be made available alongside the main text of the article at the point of EarlyCite publication.
Please note that Emerald will not make any changes to the material; it will not be copy-edited or typeset, and authors will not receive proofs of this content. Emerald therefore strongly recommends that you style all supplementary material ahead of acceptance of the article.
Emerald Insight can host the following file types and extensions:
, you should ensure that the supplementary material is hosted on the repository ahead of submission, and then include a link only to the repository within the article. It is the responsibility of the submitting author to ensure that the material is free to access and that it remains permanently available. Where an alternative trusted online repository is used, the files hosted should always be presented as read-only; please be aware that such usage risks compromising your anonymity during the review process if the repository contains any information that may enable the reviewer to identify you; as such, we recommend that all links to alternative repositories are reviewed carefully prior to submission.
Please note that extensive supplementary material may be subject to peer review; this is at the discretion of the journal Editor and dependent on the content of the material (for example, whether including it would support the reviewer making a decision on the article during the peer review process).
All references in your manuscript must be formatted using one of the recognised Harvard styles. You are welcome to use the Harvard style Emerald has adopted – we’ve provided a detailed guide below. Want to use a different Harvard style? That’s fine, our typesetters will make any necessary changes to your manuscript if it is accepted. Please ensure you check all your citations for completeness, accuracy and consistency.
References to other publications in your text should be written as follows:
, 2006) Please note, ‘ ' should always be written in italics.A few other style points. These apply to both the main body of text and your final list of references.
At the end of your paper, please supply a reference list in alphabetical order using the style guidelines below. Where a DOI is available, this should be included at the end of the reference.
Surname, initials (year), , publisher, place of publication.
e.g. Harrow, R. (2005), , Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Surname, initials (year), "chapter title", editor's surname, initials (Ed.), , publisher, place of publication, page numbers.
e.g. Calabrese, F.A. (2005), "The early pathways: theory to practice – a continuum", Stankosky, M. (Ed.), , Elsevier, New York, NY, pp.15-20.
Surname, initials (year), "title of article", , volume issue, page numbers.
e.g. Capizzi, M.T. and Ferguson, R. (2005), "Loyalty trends for the twenty-first century", , Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.72-80.
Surname, initials (year of publication), "title of paper", in editor’s surname, initials (Ed.), , publisher, place of publication, page numbers.
e.g. Wilde, S. and Cox, C. (2008), “Principal factors contributing to the competitiveness of tourism destinations at varying stages of development”, in Richardson, S., Fredline, L., Patiar A., & Ternel, M. (Ed.s), , Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, pp.115-118.
Surname, initials (year), "title of paper", paper presented at [name of conference], [date of conference], [place of conference], available at: URL if freely available on the internet (accessed date).
e.g. Aumueller, D. (2005), "Semantic authoring and retrieval within a wiki", paper presented at the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 29 May-1 June, Heraklion, Crete, available at: http://dbs.uni-leipzig.de/file/aumueller05wiksar.pdf (accessed 20 February 2007).
Surname, initials (year), "title of article", working paper [number if available], institution or organization, place of organization, date.
e.g. Moizer, P. (2003), "How published academic research can inform policy decisions: the case of mandatory rotation of audit appointments", working paper, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, 28 March.
(year), "title of entry", volume, edition, title of encyclopaedia, publisher, place of publication, page numbers.
e.g. (1926), "Psychology of culture contact", Vol. 1, 13th ed., Encyclopaedia Britannica, London and New York, NY, pp.765-771.
(for authored entries, please refer to book chapter guidelines above)
Surname, initials (year), "article title", , date, page numbers.
e.g. Smith, A. (2008), "Money for old rope", , 21 January, pp.1, 3-4.
(year), "article title", date, page numbers.
e.g. (2008), "Small change", 2 February, p.7.
Surname, initials (year), "title of document", unpublished manuscript, collection name, inventory record, name of archive, location of archive.
e.g. Litman, S. (1902), "Mechanism & Technique of Commerce", unpublished manuscript, Simon Litman Papers, Record series 9/5/29 Box 3, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
If available online, the full URL should be supplied at the end of the reference, as well as the date that the resource was accessed.
Surname, initials (year), “title of electronic source”, available at: persistent URL (accessed date month year).
e.g. Weida, S. and Stolley, K. (2013), “Developing strong thesis statements”, available at: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/1/ (accessed 20 June 2018)
Standalone URLs, i.e. those without an author or date, should be included either inside parentheses within the main text, or preferably set as a note (Roman numeral within square brackets within text followed by the full URL address at the end of the paper).
Surname, initials (year), , name of data repository, available at: persistent URL, (accessed date month year).
e.g. Campbell, A. and Kahn, R.L. (2015), , ICPSR07218-v4, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), Ann Arbor, MI, available at: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07218.v4 (accessed 20 June 2018)
There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.
Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:
You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .
All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.
The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.
A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.
Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.
Don't forget to add your ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.
Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .
Visit the ScholarOne support centre for further help and guidance.
You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact the journal editor in the first instance.
Review and decision process.
Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.
If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double anonymous peer review. Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.
While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.
During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper. Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you contact the journal editor in the first instance.
Emerald’s manuscript transfer service takes the pain out of the submission process if your manuscript doesn’t fit your initial journal choice. Our team of expert Editors from participating journals work together to identify alternative journals that better align with your research, ensuring your work finds the ideal publication home it deserves. Our dedicated team is committed to supporting authors like you in finding the right home for your research.
If a journal is participating in the manuscript transfer program, the Editor has the option to recommend your paper for transfer. If a transfer decision is made by the Editor, you will receive an email with the details of the recommended journal and the option to accept or reject the transfer. It’s always down to you as the author to decide if you’d like to accept. If you do accept, your paper and any reviewer reports will automatically be transferred to the recommended journals. Authors will then confirm resubmissions in the new journal’s ScholarOne system.
Our Manuscript Transfer Service page has more information on the process.
Open access.
Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.
If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge). This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.
For UK journal article authors - if you wish to submit your work accepted by Emerald to REF 2021, you must make a ‘closed deposit’ of your accepted manuscript to your respective institutional repository upon acceptance of your article. Articles accepted for publication after 1st April 2018 should be deposited as soon as possible, but no later than three months after the acceptance date. For further information and guidance, please refer to the REF 2021 website.
All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form. This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.
Once we have received your completed licence form, the article will pass directly into the production process. We will carry out editorial checks, copyediting, and typesetting and then return proofs to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. This is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.
When the page proofs are finalised, the fully typeset and proofed version of record is published online. This is referred to as the EarlyCite version. While an EarlyCite article has yet to be assigned to a volume or issue, it does have a digital object identifier (DOI) and is fully citable. It will be compiled into an issue according to the journal’s issue schedule, with papers being added by chronological date of publication.
Visit our author rights page to find out how you can reuse and share your work.
To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about how to promote your work .
Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our article withdrawal and correction policies .
Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.
| The only time we will ever ask you for money to publish in an Emerald journal is if you have chosen to publish via the gold open access route. You will be asked to pay an APC (article-processing charge) once your paper has been accepted (unless it is a sponsored open access journal), and never at submission.
At no other time will you be asked to contribute financially towards your article’s publication, processing, or review. If you haven’t chosen gold open access and you receive an email that appears to be from Emerald, the journal, or a third party, asking you for payment to publish, please contact our support team via . |
| Please contact the editor for the journal, with a copy of your CV. You will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. |
| Typically, papers are added to an issue according to their date of publication. If you would like to know in advance which issue your paper will appear in, please contact the content editor of the journal. You will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. Once your paper has been published in an issue, you will be notified by email. |
| Please email the journal editor – you will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. If you ever suspect an email you’ve received from Emerald might not be genuine, you are welcome to verify it with the content editor for the journal, whose contact details can be found on the editorial team tab on this page. |
| If you’ve read the aims and scope on the journal landing page and are still unsure whether your paper is suitable for the journal, please email the editor and include your paper's title and structured abstract. They will be able to advise on your manuscript’s suitability. You will find their contact details on the Editorial team tab on this page. |
| Authorship and the order in which the authors are listed on the paper should be agreed prior to submission. We have a right first time policy on this and no changes can be made to the list once submitted. If you have made an error in the submission process, please email the Journal Editorial Office who will look into your request – you will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. |
CiteScore 2023
CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.
Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.
For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition
CiteScore Tracker 2024
(updated monthly)
CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.
The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.
2023 Impact Factor
The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.
For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics
5-year Impact Factor (2023)
A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.
Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .
Time to first decision
Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.
Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024
Acceptance rate
The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %
Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .
Peer review process.
This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.
The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.
Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.
The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.
All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.
Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.
More reviewer information
Decentring the human in qualitative research: exploring diverse approaches by creating online communities.
Introduction This special issue emerged from the Australian Association for Research in Education Qualitative Research Methodologies Special Interest Group Seminar Series on Decentring the Human in Qualitative Research (cl...
The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...
The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has ...
We are pleased to announce our 2023 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Papers Extended Qualitative Content Analysis: ...
We are pleased to announce our 2021 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Collaborative autoethnography:...
Qualitative Research Journal is an international journal dedicated to communicating the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. Interdisciplinary and eclectic, QRJ covers all methodologies that can be described as qualitative.
Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry and provides an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices.
These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )
Harnessing the potential of translanguaging in tanzanian secondary education, negotiating with technology: advancing the virtual in qualitative research methods, top downloaded articles.
These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )
Regimes of patriarchy and faith: reflections on challenges in interviewing women and religious minorities in pakistan, visual tools for supporting interviews in qualitative research: new approaches.
These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: May 2024 )
Creating spaces of wellbeing in academia to mitigate academic burnout: a collaborative autoethnography, translanguaging approaches and perceptions of iranian egp teachers in bi/multilingual educational spaces: a qualitative inquiry, related journals.
This journal is part of our Education collection. Explore our Education subject area to find out more.
See all related journals
Social Studies Research and Practice (SSRP) is a quality peer-reviewed, electronic journal. Research and practice...
On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures (OTH) is a strategic planning resource for decision makers...
The first journal of its kind, the International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies publishes lesson and learning...
We believe in quality education for everyone, everywhere and by highlighting the issue and working with experts in the field, we can start to find ways we can all be part of the solution.
Issue(s) available: 61 – From Volume: 6 Issue: 1 , to Volume: 24 Issue: 4
This study aims to explore individual leader identity development across four key dimensions: strength, integration, meaning and inclusiveness.
Previous studies have identified concerns and anxiety in individuals who are without their mobile phones, which is known as nomophobia, an acronym for “no mobile phone phobia.”…
This paper examines the impact of lived experiences and attitudinal blueprints on researchers within the context of masculinities research. It explores the negotiation of gendered…
Silences in qualitative social science research present a unique and sometimes ambiguous challenge for researchers. When working with transcription artefacts, considering not only…
Using a feminist, post-structural and posthuman theoretical framing the paper argues for elevating the complexity of conceptions of migrant children’s engagements with and…
This paper delves into the enduring influence of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s groundbreaking work, “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,” while examining how the…
This article argues the value of integrating pragmatism in applying behavioural science to complex challenges. We describe a behaviour change-led knowledge co-production process…
This study aims to explore the NEET (Not in Education, Employment and Training) experiences of young people living in impoverished settings.
This study aims to explore motives behind teachers' and students' use of translanguaging and how they use it in Tanzanian public secondary school classrooms.
We articulate cycles of creative storying and data analysis and the wonder that motivated the project by detailing our reading, thinking and writing processes to contribute to the…
Personal branding is a strategic tool of marketing and communication to define success in organisations. While it constitutes a conscious attempt to commodify self and audit self…
This collaborative paper presents three case studies on four scholars' experiences with remote data collection. The authors highlight the challenges and strengths of online…
We argue this method of inquiry better represents the participants' learning, lives and experiences in the formal neoliberal education system prioritising performativity…
This autoethnographic article presents the adaptation of collage—an arts-based method traditionally used in face-to-face settings—into an online research tool. It emphasizes the…
In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and…
This study aims to describe key elements that are critical to virtual qualitative research especially while working with practitioners as participants.
While many works have reported adopting exploratory practice (EP) principles in language teaching research, only a few studies have explored the enactment of EP in an online…
This paper contributes to a dialogue about the psychoanalytic concept of free association and its application in the context of qualitative research interviewing. In doing so, it…
The following study aimed to better understand rural dwelling LGBTQ+ adults’ experiences of the challenges and opportunities facing their working lives in England.
In this study, we illuminate how techniques can be incorporated into interview protocols when conducting research with educational leaders who are being asked to discuss their…
This study aims to analyze translanguaging practices and beliefs of Iranian English for General Purposes (EGP) teachers and find discrepancies between the practice and perception…
The research aims to understand the stories of women leaders who have demonstrated bravery in leadership. By analyzing their lived experiences through storytelling and narratives…
The aim of this article is to address some aspects of a cross-cultural interview study conducted in a PhD research project. This is done by reflecting on and discussing the…
This article approaches the possibilities of photo elicitation as a technique for social research in the landscape of technology-mediated instantaneous interpersonal communication.
The purpose of this scoping rapid review was to identify and analyse existing qualitative methodologies that have been used to investigate K-12 teachers' lived experiences of…
The pandemic presented many new challenges is all spheres of life including faith communities. Around the globe, lockdowns took pace at various stages with varying restrictions…
Copyright holder:, open access:.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
Preview this book.
Qualitative Research publishes papers with a clear methodological focus. We invite scholarship that has multi-disciplinary appeal, that debates and enlivens qualitative methods, and that pushes at the boundaries of established ways of doing qualitative research. We are interested in papers that are attentive to a wide audience, that are alive to new and diverse ways of thinking about qualitative methods, and that contribute to discussions within the pages of this journal. These discussions can be brought to life through empirical studies and research encounters, but we do not accept papers that focus on reporting the findings from qualitative research studies.
We see our journal as contributing to the community of academics across different fields who use qualitative methods as a way of making sense of the world. We understand methods and methodology as a practice and as a perspective, and welcome contributions that reflect on and critically engage with both aspects. Qualitative Research is a space where ideas and understandings are used to open up methodological issues for reflection and debate, and we work hard to provide a supportive environment to foster this ethos.
Cardiff University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK |
University of Auckland, New Zealand | |
University of South Carolina, USA | |
University of Leeds, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
University of Surrey, UK | |
Griffith University, Australia | |
University of New Brunswick, Canada | |
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK | |
University of Bath, UK | |
University of Newcastle, Australia | |
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Exeter University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Brock University, Canada | |
EMLYON Business School, France | |
The Open University, UK | |
Bowling Green State University, USA | |
University of Surrey, UK | |
University of Macau, China | |
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK | |
Freie Universtität Berlin, Germany | |
University of Georgia, USA | |
Edge Hill University, UK | |
University of Georgia, USA | |
Universidad Santo Tomás, Columbia | |
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong | |
Brunel University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
University of Oulu, Finland | |
University of Lincoln, UK | |
University of Surrey, UK | |
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Concordia University, Canada | |
LSE, UK and University of Oxford, UK | |
Exeter University, UK | |
King’s College London, UK | |
University of Bristol, UK | |
McMaster University, Canada | |
University of Oslo, Norway | |
University of the Free State, South Africa | |
McGill University, Canada | |
University of Nottingham, UK | |
University of Kent, UK | |
Newman University, Birmingham, USA | |
Athabasca University, Canada | |
The University of Queensland, Australia | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany | |
University of Calgary, Canada | |
School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA | |
LSE, UK | |
Newcastle University, UK | |
University of Melbourne | |
University of the South Pacific, Fiji Islands | |
Victoria University, Australia | |
Australian Catholic University, Australia | |
Charles Darwin University, Australia and University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa | |
University of Brighton, UK | |
King's College London, UK | |
University College Cork, Ireland | |
University of Memphis, USA | |
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK | |
University of the West of Scotland, UK | |
Rutgers University, USA | |
University of Queensland, Australia | |
University of Southern Queensland, Australia | |
University of Colombo, Sri Lanka | |
University of Canterbury, New Zealand | |
Newcastle University, UK | |
University of Melbourne, Australia | |
Massey University, New Zealand | |
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico | |
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA | |
University of Georgia, USA | |
University of Sheffield, UK | |
University of Agder, Norway | |
Migration Institute of Finland, Finland | |
University of Sussex, UK | |
The University of Sheffield, UK | |
Drexel University, USA | |
University of Sheffield, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
University of Birmingham, UK | |
University of Fort Hare, South Africa | |
Ritsumeikan University, Japan | |
University of Greenwich, UK | |
Royal Roads University, Canada | |
King’s College London, UK | |
UNSW, Australia | |
University of Cambridge, UK | |
Griffith University, Australia | |
University of Salford, UK | |
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK |
Manuscript submission guidelines can be accessed on Sage Journals.
Individual Subscription, Print Only
Institutional Subscription, E-access
Institutional Subscription, Print Only
Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)
Individual, Single Print Issue
Institutional, Single Print Issue
To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.
The mission of the journal Qualitative Psychology ® is to provide a forum for innovative methodological, theoretical, and empirical work that advances qualitative inquiry in psychology. The journal publishes articles that underscore the distinctive contributions that qualitative research can make to the advancement of psychological knowledge. Studies published in this Journal often focus on substantive topics, while also highlighting issues of epistemology, the philosophy of science, methodological criteria, or other matters bearing upon the formulation, execution, and interpretation of qualitative research.
Qualitative Psychology publishes studies that represent a wide variety of methodological approaches including narrative, discourse analysis, life history, phenomenology, ethnography, action research, and case study. The journal is further concerned with discussions of teaching qualitative research and training of qualitative researchers.
Qualitative Psychology supports equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in its practices. More information on these initiatives, including our journal EDI statement, is available under EDI Efforts .
One article from each issue of Qualitative Psychology will be highlighted as an “ Editor’s Choice ” article. Selection is based on the recommendations of the associate editors, the paper’s potential impact to the field, the distinction of expanding the contributors to, or the focus of, the science, or its discussion of an important future direction for science. Editor's Choice articles are featured alongside articles from other APA published journals in a bi-weekly newsletter and are temporarily made freely available to newsletter subscribers.
Explore journal highlights : free article summaries, editor interviews and editorials, journal awards, mentorship opportunities, and more.
Prior to submission, please carefully read and follow the submission guidelines detailed below. Manuscripts that do not conform to the submission guidelines may be returned without review.
Qualitative Psychology is now using a software system to screen submitted content for similarity with other published content. The system compares each submitted manuscript against a database of 25+ million scholarly publications, as well as content appearing on the open web.
This allows APA to check submissions for potential overlap with material previously published in scholarly journals (e.g., lifted or republished material). A similarity report will be generated by the system and provided to the Qualitative Psychology Editorial office for review immediately upon submission.
To submit to the editorial office of Heidi Levitt, please submit manuscripts electronically through the Manuscript Submission Portal in Microsoft Word or Open Office format.
Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7 th edition and in compliance with the Journal Article Reporting Standards – Qualitative (PDF, 163KB) . Manuscripts should be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual ). APA Style and Grammar Guidelines for the 7 th edition are available, and please see the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (PDF, 232KB) .
You can read the editor's guidance for submitting to Qualitative Psychology in their editorial on PsycNet . Authors interested in learning more about our journal can also see a special section focused on the first decade of Qualitative Psychology in Volume 10, Issue 3 .
Submit Manuscript
Qualitative inquiry is relatively unbounded and affords a great deal of opportunity for creativity and originality. Thus, the editorship of the journal is going to specify general rather than rigid criteria for evaluation of submissions and will endeavor to stay open to novel approaches.
Nevertheless, there are some criteria that we'd like to outline in order to ensure that the articles published in Qualitative Psychology are meritorious and of the highest quality. Articles will be evaluated according to the below criteria.
Review APA's Journal Manuscript Preparation Guidelines before submitting your article.
As Qualitative Psychology will be published online as well as in print format, we strongly encourage the use of voice and video files (used with appropriate disguise and permission) to document your study.
Authors should review the APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) for quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods . The standards offer ways to improve transparency in reporting to ensure that readers have the information necessary to evaluate the quality of the research and to facilitate collaboration and replication.
JARS-Quant offers guidance to researchers using quantitative methods that may be used in research designs such as descriptive analyses, correlational analyses, quasi-experimental analyses, and experimental analyses. These JARS:
JARS-Qual offers guidance to researchers using qualitative methods that may be used in research designs such as narrative data, grounded theory, phenomenological, critical, discursive, performative, ethnographic, consensual qualitative, case study, psychobiography, and thematic analysis approaches. These JARS:
The guidelines focus on transparency in methods reporting, recommending descriptions of how the researchers’ own perspectives affected the study, as well as the contexts in which the research and analysis took place.
JARS-Mixed offers guidance to researchers using both quantitative and qualitative methods within a study. These JARS:
Authors should also review the new Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC). Meant for all authors, regardless of research topic, JARS–REC include standards for all stages of research and manuscript writing, on, for example:
Please see the special section proposal guidelines for detailed information on proposing special sections.
Double-space all copy. If specific participants are discussed in the article, please refer to them with names rather than initials.
Use pseudonyms unless there is some reason to use actual names and you have written permission to do so.
Other formatting instructions, as well as instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts, appear in the Manual . Additional guidance on APA Style is available on the APA Style website .
Use Word's Insert Table function when you create tables. Using spaces or tabs in your table will create problems when the table is typeset and may result in errors.
Authors who feel that their manuscript may benefit from additional academic writing or language editing support prior to submission are encouraged to seek out such services at their host institutions, engage with colleagues and subject matter experts, and/or consider several vendors that offer discounts to APA authors .
Please note that APA does not endorse or take responsibility for the service providers listed. It is strictly a referral service.
Use of such service is not mandatory for publication in an APA journal. Use of one or more of these services does not guarantee selection for peer review, manuscript acceptance, or preference for publication in any APA journal.
APA can place supplemental materials online, available via the published article in the APA PsycArticles ® database. Please see Supplementing Your Article With Online Material for more details.
All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 250 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases.
List references in alphabetical order. Each listed reference should be cited in text, and each text citation should be listed in the References section.
Examples of basic reference formats:
McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review , 126 (1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000126
Brown, L. S. (2018). Feminist therapy (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000092-000
Balsam, K. F., Martell, C. R., Jones. K. P., & Safren, S. A. (2019). Affirmative cognitive behavior therapy with sexual and gender minority people. In G. Y. Iwamasa & P. A. Hays (Eds.), Culturally responsive cognitive behavior therapy: Practice and supervision (2nd ed., pp. 287–314). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000119-012
Preferred formats for graphics files are TIFF and JPG, and preferred format for vector-based files is EPS. Graphics downloaded or saved from web pages are not acceptable for publication. Multipanel figures (i.e., figures with parts labeled a, b, c, d, etc.) should be assembled into one file. When possible, please place symbol legends below the figure instead of to the side.
Line weights
APA offers authors the option to publish their figures online in color without the costs associated with print publication of color figures.
The same caption will appear on both the online (color) and print (black and white) versions. To ensure that the figure can be understood in both formats, authors should add alternative wording (e.g., “the red (dark gray) bars represent”) as needed.
For authors who prefer their figures to be published in color both in print and online, original color figures can be printed in color at the editor's and publisher's discretion provided the author agrees to pay:
Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide to the editor on final acceptance all necessary permissions to reproduce in print and electronic form any copyrighted work, including test materials (or portions thereof), photographs, and other graphic images (including those used as stimuli in experiments).
On advice of counsel, APA may decline to publish any image whose copyright status is unknown.
For full details on publication policies, including use of Artificial Intelligence tools, please see APA Publishing Policies .
APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications.
See also APA Journals ® Internet Posting Guidelines .
APA requires authors to reveal any possible conflict of interest in the conduct and reporting of research (e.g., financial interests in a test or procedure, funding by pharmaceutical companies for drug research).
It is a violation of APA Ethical Principles to publish "as original data, data that have been previously published" (Standard 8.13).
In addition, APA Ethical Principles specify that "after research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release" (Standard 8.14). This said, the sharing of qualitative data may violate other ethical standards held dear by psychologists, such as protecting confidentiality or our responsibility to protecting the decisions of participants in deciding with whom they would like to share their data. For instance, participants may decide deliberately to share data with an investigator who is anti-racist or LGBTQ+ affirming and this should not be taken to imply that they wish to share their data with any researchers who they have not vetted.
Also, sharing data may not advance either scientific or verification purposes with qualitative data. The act of de-identifying data can remove contextual factors that are critical for the interpretation of findings and lead them not to be interpretable. Many qualitative methods use epistemological approaches that recognize that the methodological expertise, engagement with participants, and content knowledge of the investigator is critical for interpretation. For these reasons, it may not be reasonable to expect a researcher to undergo the extensive process of de-identifying data in order to share them with another competent researcher outside of the study team.
In contrast, qualitative methods have other processes that can be used to verify findings. Manuscripts typically include many quotations from text or other data sources and illustrate the process of analysis for each of the main findings. In this way, the evaluation of rigor can be conducted directly from the manuscript being submitted by a competent qualitative researcher.
APA expects authors to adhere to these standards. Specifically, APA expects authors to have their data available throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication.
Authors are required to state in writing that they have complied with APA ethical standards in the treatment of their participants, human or animal, or to describe the details of treatment. Authors must also state that they have permission to use any interview material, voice or video samples obtained from their participants and have sufficiently disguised material to assure anonymity (unless they have written permission not to do so).
The APA Ethics Office provides the full Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct electronically on its website in HTML, PDF, and Word format. You may also request a copy by emailing or calling the APA Ethics Office (202-336-5930). You may also read "Ethical Principles," December 1992, American Psychologist , Vol. 47, pp. 1597–1611.
In the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , authors can find statements of cautions that indicate times when sharing data from qualitative projects may be both unethical and not useful in advancing science. Authors are encouraged to review these cautions to support them to make ethical decisions to share qualitative data.
Prior to the submission of a manuscript that is co-authored, all co-authors are expected to have agreed to have the manuscript submitted and to agree with the authorship order listed on the paper. It is the ethical responsibility of the first author to ensure this before submission.
See APA’s Publishing Policies page for more information on publication policies, including information on author contributorship and responsibilities of authors, author name changes after publication, the use of generative artificial intelligence, funder information and conflict-of-interest disclosures, duplicate publication, data publication and reuse, and preprints.
Visit the Journals Publishing Resource Center for more resources for writing, reviewing, and editing articles for publishing in APA journals.
Heidi M. Levitt, PhD University of Massachusetts at Boston, United States
Roberto Abreu, PhD University of Florida, United States
Leeat Granek, PhD York University, Canada
Suzanne Kirschner, PhD College of the Holy Cross, United States
Jenny Pak, PhD Fuller Theological Seminary, United States
Rosemarie Anderson, PhD Sofia University, United States
Molly Andrews, PhD University of East London, United Kingdom
Michael Bamberg, PhD Clark University, United States
Sunil Bhatia, Med, PhD Connecticut College, United States
Virginia Braun, PhD The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Svend Brinkmann, PhD Aalborg University, Denmark
Nico A. Canoy, PhD Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
Scott D. Churchill, PhD University of Dallas, United States
Joshua W. Clegg, PhD John Jay College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York, United States
Nancy L. Deutsch, PhD University of Virginia, United States
William L. Dunlop, PhD University of California, Riverside, United States
Urmitapa Dutta, PhD University of Massachusetts Lowell, United States
Elizabeth Fein, PhD Dusquene University, United States
Michelle Fine, PhD The Graduate Center at City University of New York, United States
Daniel, Fishman, PhD Rutgers University, United States
Mark Freeman, PhD College of the Holy Cross, United States
Hanoch Flum, PhD Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
David Frost, PhD University College London, United Kingdom
Gilbert Garza, PhD University of Dallas, United States
Marco Gemignani, PhD Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Spain
Kenneth Gergen, PhD Swarthmore College, United States
Carol Gilligan, PhD New York University, United States
David M. Goodman, PhD Boston College, United States
Nisha Gupta, PhD University of West Georgia, United States
Phillip Hammack, PhD University of California, United States
Tova Hartman, EdD Ono Academic College, Israel
James Christopher Head, PhD University of West Georgia, United States
James Lamiell, PhD Georgetown University, United States
Amia Lieblich, PhD The Hebrew University, Israel
M. Brinton Lykes, MDiv, PhD Boston College, United States
Anna Madill, PhD University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Jeanne Marecek, PhD Swarthmore College, United States
Joe Maxwell, PhD George Mason University, United States
Sara McClelland, PhD University of Michigan, United States
Kate Carter McLean, PhD Western Washington University, United States
Linda M. McMullen, PhD University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Sue L. Motulsky, MA, EdD, CAS Lesley University, United States
Ora Nakash, PhD Smith College School for Social Work, United States
Chaim Noy, PhD Ashkelon Academic College, Israel
Susan Opotow, PhD John Jay College & The Graduate Center at City University of New York, United States
Lisa Osbeck, PhD University of West Georgia, United States
Jason D. Reynolds (Taewon Choi), PhD University of San Francisco, United States
Paul Rhodes, PhD University of Sydney, Australia
Brent Dean Robbins, PhD Point Park University, United States
Onnie Rogers, PhD, Northwestern University, United States
João Salgado, PhD University Institute of Maia, Portugal
Brian Schiff, PhD The American University of Paris, France
Eva Simms, PhD Duquesne University, United States
Ilana Singh, PhD University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Louise Bordeaux Silverstein, PhD Yeshiva University, United States
Richard Allan Shweder, PhD University of Chicago, United States
Jefferson A. Singer, PhD Connecticut College, United States
Brent D. Slife, PhD Brigham Young University, United States
Renee Spencer Boston University, United States
Jennie Park-Taylor, PhD Fordham University, United States
Cristian Tileaga, PhD Loughborough University, United Kingdom
Deborah L. Tolman, EdD Hunter College, United States
Erin E. Toolis, PhD State University of New York at Old Westbury, United States
Rivka Tuval Mashiach, PhD Bar Ilan University, Israel
Jaan Valsiner, PhD Aalborg University, Denmark
H. Shellae Versey, PhD Fordham University, United States
Tiffany R. Williams, PhD Tennessee State University, United States
Frederick J. Wertz, PhD Fordham University, United States
Cynthia Winston-Proctor, PhD Howard University, United States
Stanton Wortham, PhD Boston College, United States
Abstracting and indexing services providing coverage of Qualitative Psychology ®
Special issue of APA’s journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2022. This summer’s special issue is a compendium of articles about qualitative methodology and methods. These articles, taken together, display the creativity in the evolution of qualitative research methodology.
Special issue of APA’s journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2021. The special issue provides examples of how the Listening Guide has been used with a variety of questions and in a range of contexts; it highlights innovations in use of the method and underscores the radical potential in replacing judgment with curiosity.
Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 2019. The issue grapples with what is among the most important and intractable problems that have arisen in the study of narrative identity: How can we conceptualize stability and change in the life story?
Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, August 2018. The goal is to recognize ongoing achievements and to encourage the creation of new practices in the teaching of qualitative inquiry in undergraduate psychology programs.
Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, August 2017. Reflexivity is the art of taking the researcher's self as an object of scrutiny and examining how this self, with all its cognitive, emotional, and social parts, affects the research process.
Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2016. The issue highlights the theoretical and methodological contributions of positive youth development and how the field could be further deepened and revitalized by more purposeful inclusion of qualitative methods throughout its studies.
Qualitative Psychology supports equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in its practices. Since its inception, our journal has had a history of valuing critical, feminist, anti-racist, critical disability, anti-colonial, multicultural, queer, epistemically diverse, and participatory forms of qualitative research. These forms of research center the voices and experiences of under-represented and minoritized communities and individuals and further a socially just psychology. We welcome submissions to our journal from these perspectives, especially those that attend to the unique challenges and issues in conducting qualitative research from these stances and with disenfranchised people.
More information on this journal’s reporting standards is listed under the submission guidelines tab .
Sign up to receive email alerts on the latest content published.
Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.
Calls for Papers
Access options
APA Publishing Insider is a free monthly newsletter with tips on APA Style, open science initiatives, active calls for papers, research summaries, and more.
Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.
For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .
Showing 1 - 13 of 1,181
View by: Cover Page List Articles
Sort by: Recent Popular
Iris Knoop, Annie S. K. Jones, [ ... ], Rona Moss-Morris
Justin Damian Russell Strain, Lindsay Welch, Euan Sadler
Wenceslaus Sseguya, Silver Bahendeka, [ ... ], Aravinda Meera Guntupalli
Lakachew Yismaw Bazezew, Asrat Hailu Dagne, [ ... ], Mengistu Berhan Gobeza
Sharynne Lee Hamilton, Larissa Jones, [ ... ], Brad Farrant
Grace Branjerdporn, Hayley Kimball, [ ... ], Kerri M. Gillespie
Timon de Boer, Frank Van Rijnsoever, Hans de Bresser
Veronica Barcelona, Danielle Scharp, [ ... ], Maxim Topaz
Maria Heckel, Franziska A. Herbst
John Broughan, Emīls Sietiņš, [ ... ], Walter Cullen
Livia Oliveira-Ciabati, Anna Thorson, Vanessa Brizuela
Aaliah Aly, Ola Hishari, [ ... ], Banan Mukhalalati
Obianuju Genevieve Aguolu, Moses Chapa Kiti, [ ... ], Saad B. Omer
Sage online ordering services are currently unavailable due to network disruption. We are working to restore service as soon as possible. In the meantime, our books are still available widely via retailers and online. Currently we are only able to supply digital inspection copies. These can be requested via this site, or direct from Vitalsource and Kortext . If you need a print copy, please contact your local Academic Sales Consultant, who will be able to arrange to send this once our systems are back online.
I f you need further assistance please visit our Contact us page for further information. Thank you for your patience and we apologise for the inconvenience.
Preview this book.
Qualitative Research publishes papers with a clear methodological focus. We invite scholarship that has multi-disciplinary appeal, that debates and enlivens qualitative methods, and that pushes at the boundaries of established ways of doing qualitative research. We are interested in papers that are attentive to a wide audience, that are alive to new and diverse ways of thinking about qualitative methods, and that contribute to discussions within the pages of this journal. These discussions can be brought to life through empirical studies and research encounters, but we do not accept papers that focus on reporting the findings from qualitative research studies.
We see our journal as contributing to the community of academics across different fields who use qualitative methods as a way of making sense of the world. We understand methods and methodology as a practice and as a perspective, and welcome contributions that reflect on and critically engage with both aspects. Qualitative Research is a space where ideas and understandings are used to open up methodological issues for reflection and debate, and we work hard to provide a supportive environment to foster this ethos.
Cardiff University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK |
University of Auckland, New Zealand | |
University of South Carolina, USA | |
University of Leeds, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
University of Surrey, UK | |
Griffith University, Australia | |
University of New Brunswick, Canada | |
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK | |
University of Bath, UK | |
University of Newcastle, Australia | |
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Exeter University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Brock University, Canada | |
EMLYON Business School, France | |
The Open University, UK | |
Bowling Green State University, USA | |
University of Surrey, UK | |
University of Macau, China | |
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK | |
Freie Universtität Berlin, Germany | |
University of Georgia, USA | |
Edge Hill University, UK | |
University of Georgia, USA | |
Universidad Santo Tomás, Columbia | |
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong | |
Brunel University, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
University of Oulu, Finland | |
University of Lincoln, UK | |
University of Surrey, UK | |
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Concordia University, Canada | |
LSE, UK and University of Oxford, UK | |
Exeter University, UK | |
King’s College London, UK | |
University of Bristol, UK | |
McMaster University, Canada | |
University of Oslo, Norway | |
University of the Free State, South Africa | |
McGill University, Canada | |
University of Nottingham, UK | |
University of Kent, UK | |
Newman University, Birmingham, USA | |
Athabasca University, Canada | |
The University of Queensland, Australia | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany | |
University of Calgary, Canada | |
School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA | |
LSE, UK | |
Newcastle University, UK | |
University of Melbourne | |
University of the South Pacific, Fiji Islands | |
Victoria University, Australia | |
Australian Catholic University, Australia | |
Charles Darwin University, Australia and University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa | |
University of Brighton, UK | |
King's College London, UK | |
University College Cork, Ireland | |
University of Memphis, USA | |
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK | |
University of the West of Scotland, UK | |
Rutgers University, USA | |
University of Queensland, Australia | |
University of Southern Queensland, Australia | |
University of Colombo, Sri Lanka | |
University of Canterbury, New Zealand | |
Newcastle University, UK | |
University of Melbourne, Australia | |
Massey University, New Zealand | |
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico | |
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA | |
University of Georgia, USA | |
University of Sheffield, UK | |
University of Agder, Norway | |
Migration Institute of Finland, Finland | |
University of Sussex, UK | |
The University of Sheffield, UK | |
Drexel University, USA | |
University of Sheffield, UK | |
Cardiff University, UK | |
University of Birmingham, UK | |
University of Fort Hare, South Africa | |
Ritsumeikan University, Japan | |
University of Greenwich, UK | |
Royal Roads University, Canada | |
King’s College London, UK | |
UNSW, Australia | |
University of Cambridge, UK | |
Griffith University, Australia | |
University of Salford, UK | |
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK |
Manuscript submission guidelines can be accessed on Sage Journals.
Individual Subscription, Print Only
Institutional Subscription, E-access
Institutional Subscription, Print Only
Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)
Individual, Single Print Issue
Institutional, Single Print Issue
To purchase a non-standard subscription or a back issue, please contact SAGE Customer Services for availability.
[email protected] +44 (0) 20 7324 8701
American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes qualitative research articles from a number of social science disciplines such as psychology, health science, sociology, criminology, education, political science, and administrative studies. The journal is an international and interdisciplinary focus and greatly welcomes papers from all countries. The journal offers an intellectual platform for researchers, practitioners, administrators, and policymakers to contribute and promote qualitative research and analysis.
ISSN: 2576-2141
American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) welcomes original research articles and book reviews for its next issue. The AJQR is a quarterly and peer-reviewed journal published in February, May, August, and November.
We are seeking submissions for a forthcoming issue published in February 2024. The paper should be written in professional English. The length of 6000-10000 words is preferred. All manuscripts should be prepared in MS Word format and submitted online: https://www.editorialpark.com/ajqr
For any further information about the journal, please visit its website: https://www.ajqr.org
Submission Deadline: November 15, 2023
Dear AJQR Readers,
Due to the high volume of submissions in the American Journal of Qualitative Research , the editorial board decided to publish quarterly since 2023.
Current issue.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated the difficult juggling act women in the U.S. have to do between parenting their children and working outside the home. The pandemic has also led to a decline in maternal mental health, particularly among mothers with young children, mothers of color, and those with previous mental health issues. The authors noted these experiences in their own lives as mothers with children and observed them in the lives of the women around them. These observations informed the design of this narrative inquiry study, in which we used semi-structured interviews to explore mothers’ shifting ideas and experiences of mothering, work, and family life during a global pandemic. We used creative analytic practice (CAP) to compose reflexive researcher conversations around the interview data that enabled us to highlight nuances in the data, show more transparently our meaning-making, make visible our researcher subjectivities, show uncertainties about aspects of data interpretation, and create a more accessible data representation.
Keywords: Mothering, COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. women, Narrative inquiry, Creative analytic practice.
The COVID-19 pandemic put France’s healthcare system under extreme tension and led to significant levels of stress among healthcare professionals in general and nurses in particular. Research has shown how these elements affected nurses’ physical and psychological health and manifested as insomnia, anxiety, and depressive syndromes. The present qualitative study aimed to explore the lived experiences of France’s nurses as a function of their level of exposure to the virus and whether they worked in the hospital sector or practiced privately in the community during the pandemic’s first wave. It also sought to describe the resources nurses used to maintain their overall health. We administered 19 qualitative interviews to 19 nurses in the autumn of 2021. The present study revealed that nurses were subjected to significant stress during the pandemic. Our data analysis enabled us to draw out three principal themes: 1) Being on the edge in stormy period ; 2) Personal impact on several levels and 3) Floating together and learning. There were no significant differences between the groups that were subjected to different levels of exposure to COVID-19. All the groups were affected by the pandemic that struck a healthcare system that was already systematically fragile. Nurses were severely tested by the COVID-19 pandemic, but their consciousness of the importance of their role grew, despite questioning what meaning there was to their profession, perhaps even to their lives . The trauma still felt fresh 18 months later, during the interviews, and this cannot be ignored in future healthcare policymaking .
Keywords: COVID-19, nurses, salutogenesis, stressors, health resources.
Annual mammography screening is recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society (ACS) to reduce mortality through early detection of breast cancer. In rural Appalachia, rates of later-stage breast cancer incidence and mortality are higher than national averages. We explored the ways that providers and staff at breast cancer screening facilities employed novel approaches to overcome patient- and facility-level barriers to access to breast cancer screening in the Appalachian region. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with 28 clinical providers and staff of breast health facilities in Appalachia. Themes reflect how limiting features of breast screening facilities influenced access to care; the way patient-level barriers presented challenges to access to breast screening; and that external and regulatory forces presented obstacles to access to care. In addition, the unique geographical and geographical attributes of the Appalachian region shaped access and adherence to mammography screening recommendations. Thematic findings highlight that facilities implemented patient-centered strategies to overcome access-related barriers. Results may inform the ways breast cancer screening facilities address suboptimal access to breast health screening. They may also inform future resource allocations to enable facilities to reach breast cancer screening performance goals.
Keywords: rural health, breast cancer, preventive health care, women’s health.
Paternal parenting affects child development; hence, the father’s absence has a deleterious effect on the male child. The literature on parenting shows limited focus on how parenting impacts children by gender. This qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study investigated the key question, “How does a father’s absence during childhood influence a man’s subsequent parenting of his son(s)?” An integrated theoretical framework was used to guide the study: Parenting Style Theory, Social-Cognitive Theory, and Bioecological Systems Theory. Nine Trinidadian males aged 20 to 35 years who were parenting sons were recruited to participate using snowball sampling. Data on men’s adverse childhood experiences were gathered using semi-structured interviews. Content and thematic analyses were done using DELVE software. Key findings include the influence of stereotypical cultural constructs, the church’s critical role in addressing childhood trauma, the transmission of father absence across generations, and the relationship between neurodevelopment and adverse childhood experiences. Implications of these findings will benefit child and adolescent advocacy, inform policymaking, aid professional intervention in mental health and education, and strengthen familial systems and ecclesiastical contexts. Future research should explore the lived experiences of men who crave emotional connection with their sons yet struggle with the stereotypical cultural perception of manhood.
Keywords: father absence, brain development, childhood trauma, intergenerational, the transmission of behavior.
The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to understand the essence of the shared lived experiences of undergraduate college students with anxiety disorders at two universities in the Southeastern United States. Ellis’s cognitive theory, rational emotive behavior therapy, guided the study which took place at a mid-sized, public nonsectarian university and a small, private liberal arts college. The central research question elicited rich data regarding the shared lived experiences of the study participants. The four research sub-questions address participants’ perceptions regarding the impact of their disorders on their lifestyles and academic performance. A purposeful criterion sample was used to select the participants who completed a questionnaire, open-ended individual interviews, a single focus group interview, and participant journals. Phenomenological reduction was used to create a composite integration of meaning and the essence of the lived experience of the participants. Data results identified five themes: (a) social fears, (b) stressor issues, (c) generational issues, (d) academic performance barriers, and (e) institutional education and accommodation preferences.
Keywords: Alexithymia, anxiety, disorder, qualitative, stressors
School shootings are traumatic events that can lead to anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder among students who experience these events. It is important to find effective strategies to help students cope with their return to school, as well as their anxiety and stress levels while on campus. There exists a gap in the literature on the effects of therapy dogs on students who have witnessed a school shooting. This current study used a retrospective mixed-methods survey that was sent to recent graduates of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (located in Parkland, Florida) who witnessed the February 2018 shooting. Data were collected to assess how the therapy dogs affected students' willingness to return to school and their stress/anxiety levels while on campus. Identified themes indicated that the therapy dogs helped with anxiety levels, stress levels, and overall moods of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students. These findings provide important implications for community leaders and school administrators who want to promote healing and well-being in a community that has experienced violence.
Keywords: Therapy dog, school shooting, community violence.
Identifying the relation between the processes of programming and foreign language writing may lead to new directions for programming language and natural language focused instructional design. The present qualitative case study supported by quantitative data investigated foreign language writing experiences of computer engineering students taking an object-oriented programming course. Forty-five sophomores learning programming and academic English simultaneously in a foundation university in Ankara, Turkey, were selected purposefully for the case study. There were two data sources (students’ opinions and documents) and three data collection tools (a semi-structured interview, a short diary, and a composition. In terms of the findings of the research, four themes were obtained; however, only the use of metacognitive strategies will be explained in detail due to the length of the study. Participants stated that they feel the positive effects of programming experience on the use of self-evaluation strategy and that there are similarities and differences between the processes of programming and foreign language writing. Participants’ views on the effect of programming on foreign language writing did not differ according to their writing and programming performance scores. Participants stated that programming experience may have an effect on the use of metacognitive language learning strategies in the writing process. Upon analyzing participants’ comments, it is understood that programming experience does not hinder the use of metacognitive strategies but has a role in supporting and reinforcing their use. It is suggested that multiple case studies be done for similar views on the effects of programming and that each finding be proven by quantitative studies.
Keywords: programming, foreign language writing, metacognitive strategies.
The significance of participatory decision-making in educational institutions is widely acknowledged as essential in school management and administration. This study aimed to determine how involved teachers are in making decisions in their schools and what role they think they play in shaping different parts of school policies and procedures. It also looked at their perspectives on how decisions made by others are carried out in schools. Semi-structured interviews with 10 secondary school teachers focused on teachers' role in decision-making related to their routine school tasks, strategic decision-making, participatory role in making school decisions, and their willingness to participate in decision-making. This study showed that teachers' low participation is attributed to their shared desire to be involved in school management and administration-related decisions. Teachers expressed that participatory school-based decision-making can promote collaboration and collectivism among the school staff, and it plays a significant role in shaping their work satisfaction and motivation. By gaining insights into teachers' perspectives, this study aims to contribute to the broader understanding of participatory school decision-making in the Rwandan secondary education system and communicate potential improvements for fostering a more collaborative and inclusive educational environment.
Keywords: teachers’ perceptions, qualitative research, decision-making, secondary schools.
One of the major inefficiencies in qualitative research is the accuracy and timeliness of transcribing audio files into analyzable text. However, researchers may now have the ability to leverage artificial intelligence to increase research efficiency through Chat GPT. As a result, this study performs feasibility and accuracy testing of Chat GPT versus human transcription to compare accuracy and timeliness. Results suggest that by using specific commands, Chat GPT can clean interview transcriptions in seconds with a <1% word error rate and near 0% syntactic error rate. Implications for research and ethics are addressed.
Keywords: Chat GPT, artificial intelligence, qualitative research, educational research, transcription
Alcohol misuse on college campuses has been shown to be the cause of physical, socio-emotional, and academic harms. Alcohol is also an issue at Gallaudet University but there is a gap in the literature describing this phenomenon. Using the social ecological model, this qualitative case study explored student perceptions and experiences with alcohol use through interviews with 24 deaf and hard of hearing college students at Gallaudet University. The main themes included: something to do, isolation, coping, communication, “playing catch up with life,” belonging, peer pressure, and university dynamics. The results of this study supported the research on alcohol use in the college environment, showing these themes to also be true at Gallaudet University. As a result, researchers recommend for Gallaudet University and other institutions use the education and interventions shown to be effective in the College Alcohol Intervention Matrix with deaf and hard of hearing students. Researchers also identified themes that were divergent from general college students and specific to the experience of being deaf and hard of hearing. This study highlighted the interpersonal level impact and importance of communication with alcohol and related harms. Researchers recommend further research on the spectrum of communication isolation on alcohol use, related harms, and the social-ecological impact of these experiences. In addition, researchers recommend programming and services to specifically address the issues that occur as a result of isolation, coping challenges, desire to belong, susceptibility to peer pressure, and wanting to catch up on life. It is hoped that the insights gained from this study will be used to inform interventions for deaf and hard of hearing college students, to reduce alcohol misuse, and thus to impact positive change.
Keywords: Deaf, hard of hearing, alcohol, college, university, isolation.
This qualitative study explores the perceived challenges for older adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and how they worked on overcoming this adversity. Our sample (n=50), derived from a larger study, includes individuals 60 or older in Puerto Rico and the United States. Data were collected through an online questionnaire between May and August 2020 and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Themes describe resilience through reflection and adaptation, critique of systemic problems and injustices, and reaffirmation of values and what is important. Considering the detrimental effect of the pandemic context on the older population, understanding their experiences and sources of strength can improve how they are supported in future crises.
Keywords: older adults, pandemic, COVID-19, reflexive thematic analysis, qualitative, Puerto Rico.
Current issue.
Various themes of urdu novels, the novel "kai chand they sar-e-aasman": some new discoveries, new society, new role of parents: how parent's role affects millennials perspective of riau malay culture, examining linguistic techniques and communication design strategies in pakistani drug trafficking networks, optimizing body composition and cardiorespiratory endurance: a field experiment on polarized training in long-distance runners, review of altaf fatima's novel "chalta musafir": a study from the context of east pakistan's tragedy, effects of low, medium, and high-intensity training programs on hemoglobin levels in amateur football players: an experimental comparative study, impact of aerobic exercise on cortisol levels, perceived stress and total mood disturbance in women aged 20-40 nadia mukhtar1, riffat aisha2, sohail ahmad khan3, sidra tul muntaha4, mehreen saba5, sohail roman6 1 in-charge (sports), female campus internat, make a submission, information.
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.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Patrik aspers.
1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
2 Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
3 Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.
If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.
To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).
Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).
Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.
The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.
Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:
While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).
According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.
The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.
Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.
Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).
If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.
This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)
Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.
We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.
Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.
The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).
In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.
In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.
In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.
In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.
In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .
As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.
Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.
The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.
In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.
This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.
The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:
Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)
Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).
Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.
Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).
There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).
We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.
This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).
Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?
Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?
In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.
We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.
Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.
Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).
We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:
Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)
But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.
It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.
Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).
Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.
In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.
Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.
We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?
Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.
In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.
Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.
Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.
Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.
By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.
Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.
Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).
While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.
Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.
It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.
Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.
We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.
Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.
We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.
We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.
Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.
Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.
Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.
A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.
To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.
Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.
is professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, Uppsala University and Universität St. Gallen. His main focus is economic sociology, and in particular, markets. He has published numerous articles and books, including Orderly Fashion (Princeton University Press 2010), Markets (Polity Press 2011) and Re-Imagining Economic Sociology (edited with N. Dodd, Oxford University Press 2015). His book Ethnographic Methods (in Swedish) has already gone through several editions.
is associate professor of sociology at the Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger. His research has been published in journals such as Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Theory, Teaching Sociology, and Music and Arts in Action. As an ethnographer he is working on a book on he social world of big-wave surfing.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .
Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .
As a future professional in the social and education landscape, research design is one of the most critical strategies that you will master to identify challenges, ask questions and form data-driven solutions to address problems specific to your industry.
Many approaches to research design exist, and not all work in every circumstance. While all data-focused research methods are valid in their own right, certain research design methods are more appropriate for specific study objectives.
Unlock our resource to learn more about jump starting a career in research design — Research Design and Data Analysis for the Social Good .
We will discuss the differences between quantitative (numerical and statistics-focused) and qualitative (non-numerical and human-focused) research design methods so that you can determine which approach is most strategic given your specific area of graduate-level study.
Qualitative research focuses on understanding a phenomenon based on human experience and individual perception. It is a non-numerical methodology relying on interpreting a process or result. Qualitative research also paves the way for uncovering other hypotheses related to social phenomena.
In its most basic form, qualitative research is exploratory in nature and seeks to understand the subjective experience of individuals based on social reality.
Qualitative data is…
You want to use qualitative data research design if:
Here are just a few examples of how qualitative research design methods can impact education:
Example 1: Former educators participate in in-depth interviews to help determine why a specific school is experiencing a higher-than-average turnover rate compared to other schools in the region. These interviews help determine the types of resources that will make a difference in teacher retention.
Example 2: Focus group discussions occur to understand the challenges that neurodivergent students experience in the classroom daily. These discussions prepare administrators, staff, teachers and parents to understand the kinds of support that will augment and improve student outcomes.
Example 3: Case studies examine the impacts of a new education policy that limits the number of teacher aids required in a special needs classroom. These findings help policymakers determine whether the new policy affects the learning outcomes of a particular class of students.
Quantitative research tests hypotheses and measures connections between variables. It relies on insights derived from numbers — countable, measurable and statistically sound data. Quantitative research is a strategic research design used when basing critical decisions on statistical conclusions and quantifiable data.
Quantitative research provides numerical-backed quantifiable data that may approve or discount a theory or hypothesis.
Quantitative data is…
You want to use quantitative data research design if:
Here are just a few examples of how quantitative research design methods may impact education:
Example 1: Researchers compile data to understand the connection between class sizes and standardized test scores. Researchers can determine if and what the relationship is between smaller, intimate class sizes and higher test scores for grade-school children using statistical and data analysis.
Example 2: Professionals conduct an experiment in which a group of high school students must complete a certain number of community service hours before graduation. Researchers compare those students to another group of students who did not complete service hours — using statistical analysis to determine if the requirement increased college acceptance rates.
Example 3: Teachers take a survey to examine an education policy that restricts the number of extracurricular activities offered at a particular academic institution. The findings help better understand the far-reaching impacts of extracurricular opportunities on academic performance.
Vanderbilt University's Peabody College of Education and Human Development offers a variety of respected, nationally-recognized graduate programs designed with future agents of social change in mind. We foster a culture of excellence and compassion and guide you to become the best you can be — both in the classroom and beyond.
At Peabody College, you will experience
Explore our monthly publication — Ideas in Action — for an inside look at how Peabody College translates discoveries into action.
Please click below to explore a few of the graduate degrees offered at Peabody College:
At Peabody College, we equip you with the marketable, transferable skills needed to secure a valuable career in education and beyond. You will emerge from the graduate program of your choice ready to enhance humankind in more meaningful ways than you could have imagined.
If you want to develop the sought-after skills needed to be a force for change in the social and educational spaces, you are in the right place .
We invite you to request more information ; we will connect you with an admissions professional who can answer all your questions about choosing one of these transformative graduate degrees at Peabody College. You may also take this opportunity to review our admissions requirements and start your online application today.
← All Posts
615-322-6397 Email
7 quantitative data careers in education that can make a difference, the rewarding outcomes of being a special education teacher, should i earn an m.p.p. degree in education policy 4 questions to ask, keep reading.
You have full access to this open access article
615k Accesses
24 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.
Unsettling definitions of qualitative research, what is “qualitative” in qualitative research why the answer does not matter but the question is important.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.
To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).
Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).
Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.
The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.
Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:
While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).
According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.
The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.
Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.
Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).
If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.
This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)
Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.
We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.
Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.
The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).
In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.
In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.
In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.
In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.
In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .
As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.
Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.
The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.
In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.
This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.
The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:
Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)
Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).
Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.
Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).
There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).
We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.
This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).
Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?
Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?
In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.
We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.
Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.
Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).
We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:
Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)
But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.
It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.
Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).
Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.
In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.
Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.
We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?
Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.
In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.
Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.
Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.
Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.
By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.
Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.
Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).
While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.
Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.
It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.
Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.
We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.
Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.
We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.
We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.
Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.
Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.
Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.
A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.
To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.
Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.
Google Scholar
Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.
Book Google Scholar
Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.
Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.
Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.
Article Google Scholar
Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.
Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.
Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.
Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.
Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.
Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.
Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.
Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.
Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2007. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30 (3): 287–305.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.
Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.
Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.
James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.
Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.
Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.
Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.
Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .
Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.
Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.
Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.
McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.
Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.
Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.
Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.
Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.
Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.
Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.
Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.
Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.
Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.
Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.
Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.
Download references
Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Patrik Aspers
Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Reprints and permissions
Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
Download citation
Published : 27 February 2019
Issue Date : 01 June 2019
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
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
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Qualitative Research is a peer-reviewed international journal that has been leading debates about qualitative methods for over 20 years. The journal provides a forum for the discussion and development of qualitative methods across disciplines, publishing high quality articles that contribute to the ways in which we think about and practice the craft of qualitative research.
Learn how to prepare and submit your article to Qualitative Research Journal, a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research papers and reviews on qualitative methods and approaches. Find out the format, length, structure, keywords, abstract, and classification requirements for your submission.
The International Journal of Qualitative Methods is the peer-reviewed interdisciplinary open access journal of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology (IIQM) at the University of Alberta, Canada. The journal, established in 2002, is an eclectic international forum for insights, innovations and advances in methods and study designs using qualitative or mixed methods research.
Preview abstract. Restricted access Research article First published May 29, 2023 pp. 751-770. xml GET ACCESS. Table of contents for Qualitative Research, 24, 3, Jun 01, 2024.
Qualitative Research Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research methods and qualitative inquiries in various fields. Browse the latest and past issues, subscribe to table of contents alerts, and access articles on topics such as intercultural communication, public pedagogy, co-production, and more.
Qualitative Research Journal publishes articles on qualitative research methods and findings in various disciplines. Browse the latest articles, submit your paper, or explore open calls for papers on ScienceDirect.com.
Qualitative Research was established in 2001 by Sara Delamont and Paul Atkinson. The journal was founded to offer a critical and reflective gaze on methodological approaches, understandings and engagements, and worked to counter tendencies that imagined qualitative research could become a taken for granted set of precepts and procedures.
Read the latest articles of Qualitative Research Journal at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature
Book review: Qualitative research in education: a review for physics education and other sub-sciences. Abd Aziz Ardiansyah. Pages 337-340. Read the latest articles of Qualitative Research Journal at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature.
Qualitative Research is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal covering qualitative research methods in the fields of sociology and other social sciences.It was established in 2001 and is published by SAGE Publications.The founding editors were Sara Delamont and P. Atkinson. The current editors-in-chief are Bella Dicks, Karen Henwood, and William Housley (Cardiff University).
Qualitative Research was established in 2001 by Sara Delamont and Paul Atkinson.The journal was founded to offer a critical and reflective gaze on methodological approaches, understandings and engagements, and worked to counter tendencies that imagined qualitative research could become a taken for granted set of precepts and procedures.
The mission of the journal Qualitative Psychology® is to provide a forum for innovative methodological, theoretical, and empirical work that advances qualitative inquiry in psychology. The journal publishes articles that underscore the distinctive contributions that qualitative research can make to the advancement of psychological knowledge.
While many books and articles guide various qualitative research methods and analyses, there is currently no concise resource that explains and differentiates among the most common qualitative approaches. We believe novice qualitative researchers, students planning the design of a qualitative study or taking an introductory qualitative research course, and faculty teaching such courses can ...
Browse the latest qualitative studies published in PLOS ONE, a peer-reviewed, open access journal that covers various disciplines of research. Find articles on topics such as social norms, caregiving, resilience, boredom, and more.
Qualitative Research was established in 2001 by Sara Delamont and Paul Atkinson. The journal was founded to offer a critical and reflective gaze on methodological approaches, understandings and engagements, and worked to counter tendencies that imagined qualitative research could become a taken for granted set of precepts and procedures.
The journal is an international and interdisciplinary focus and greatly welcomes papers from all countries. The journal offers an intellectual platform for researchers, practitioners, administrators, and policymakers to contribute and promote qualitative research and analysis. ISSN: 2576-2141.
Effects of Low, Medium, and High-Intensity Training Programs on Hemoglobin Levels in Amateur Football Players: An Experimental Comparative Study. Naseem Ullah, Dr. Wasim Khan, Sardar Nasir Sohail, Sajid Mehmood, Habib Ullah, Asma Bibi. pdf.
Volume 24, Issue 1, February 2024. Special Issue: Ethnomethodology and Ethnography. pp. 3-144. Browse all issues of Qualitative Research.
SSM - Qualitative Research in Health is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes international and interdisciplinary qualitative research, methodological, and theoretical contributions related to medical care, illness, disease, health, and wellbeing from across the globe.. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health is edited by Stefan Timmermans, a Senior Editor at Social Science & Medicine.
Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials - case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts - that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives.
The Qualitative Report Guide to Qualitative Research Journals is a unique resource for researchers, scholars, and students to explore the world of professional, scholarly, and academic journals publishing qualitative research. The number and variety of journals focusing primarily on qualitative approaches to research have steadily grown over ...
Many studies have illustrated the potential use of ChatGPT for medical education, research, and practice. 17-20 In research, ChatGPT has been used to improve scientific writing and literature reviews and to add efficiency in both qualitative and quantitative analyses. 18 However, it possesses limitations, with one interesting example being the ...
We will discuss the differences between quantitative (numerical and statistics-focused) and qualitative (non-numerical and human-focused) research design methods so that you can determine which approach is most strategic given your specific area of graduate-level study.. Understanding Social Phenomena: Qualitative Research Design. Qualitative research focuses on understanding a phenomenon ...
Qualitative Health Research (QHR) is a peer-reviewed monthly journal that provides an international, interdisciplinary forum to enhance health care and further the development and understanding of qualitative research in health-care settings.QHR is an invaluable resource for researchers and academics, administrators and others in the health and social service professions, and graduates who ...
To help close this research gap, we first conducted expert interviews with ten different innovation hubs in rural areas in Germany. Based on our qualitative content analysis, we were able to identify four central roles of such hubs (supporters, knowledge brokers, networkers, and physical experiment spaces) and develop an analysis scheme for ...
What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being "qualitative," the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term "qualitative." Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered ...