Overview of Qualitative
Research Design
Now that we have covered the basic tools that
qualitative researchers use. Let's go over the steps involved in
conducting a qualitative study.
I Steps in Qualitative Research
A. Questions
Responsive (respond to what is happening - adapt to situation, be flexible).
As we have already mentioned. All research starts with a question, whether it is guided by theory, practical concerns, or curiosity.
Key thing to keep in mind about qualitative research -- is that the questions being posed can often change during the course of the study. That is, the researcher may enter the field with one set of questions in mind and decide during the course of the study to pursue a different set of questions.
Often as qualitative researchers start
investigating a topic, they find something more interesting or
unusual to explore.
B. Conceptualization
Again, we have already talked about conceptualization.
While qualitative researchers define their topics before starting research. Often they will re-define their topic during the course of the project.
As qualitative researchers begin to gain an insiders perspective, they will often re-conceptualize or re-define the topic they are investigating.
Moreover, often the goal of qualitative
research is to conceptualize a topic from an insiders point of
view.
C. Operationalization
When doing qualitative research, it is important to establish procedures or protocols that will be followed when making observations, asking questions, or reviewing documents.
That is, researchers must define and explicitly spell out how they will make and record their observations, conduct their interviews, or review the documents or artifacts they obtain.
Again, when doing qualitative research, it is not unusual for scholars to change their protocols, based upon what they observe.
When we talked about operationalization before, we discussed two very important issues that often crop-up.
These issues deal with how trustworthy and
accurate our observations are.
1. Reliability (trustworthy)
Deals with the stability of observations. Do research protocols yield the same information when carried out on the exact same entity, time after time.
Most problems with reliability stems from the inconsistent use of protocols.
However, in qualitative research, it is often very difficult to asses how reliable a protocol is. Moreover qualitative researchers acknowledge that observations are largely depend upon a specific context and the particular individual who makes them.
What one person sees at a given time, may not be what another person or the same person might see at another time.
So, when it comes to qualitative research.
Reliability is hard to asses.
2. Validity (authenticity-believability)
How accurate is the information provided by a protocol?
Does the protocol established actually provide accurate and correct information about the topic being investigated.
Are the observations credible?
Ways to check validity.
a. Triangulation
Using multiple sources or methods to gain information about a topic. If the multiple sources or methods produce similar information then you can have more faith or belief in the validity of the information you obtained.
In short, there are three basic ways that you can triangulate your findings.
1) use multiple sources
Talk to a variety of sources about the same topic and compare the answers you get.
2) use multiple methods
Use a variety of approaches. For instance, make observations, conduct interviews and review artifacts when studying a topic. If the information you get from multiple methods doesn't seem to mesh or fit together, then you know that your procedures are not producing very valid information.
3) use multiple investigators
Have more than one investigator in the field. Compare answers across multiple investigators. If similar answers are obtained, then you can place more faith in the validity of the information obtained.
b. Member Checks
After you've gathered your information. Ask several of the group members to look it over with you.
Ask them whether your interpretations are
correct.
D. Sampling
Random sampling techniques are not used very often in qualitative research.
1. Purposive Sample
You select observations that you believe will provide the most information about your topic.
Several different ways that you can go about selecting a purposive sample.
a. Snowball Sampling
If you are studying a specific type of people, you might want to employ snowball sampling.
Snowball sampling works this way. You find someone, typically an informant, and ask them to name other people that you can talk to. Once you talk to these people you ask them if they can provide names of other people that you can talk to, and so on.
Used when the phenomenon (individuals) under investigation might be somewhat difficult to study (i.e., teenagers using drugs).
b. Maximum Variation Sampling
Try to identify people or places that will provide the widest range of experience or behaviors.
As you can guess, it is used when you want to document the range of possibilities that exist.
c. Theoretical Construct Sampling
This simply means listing the qualities or characteristics of the concept you want to study, and then finding people or units that meet your qualifications.
In other words, you clearly specify what it is you are interested in studying, by listing the qualities or characteristics of the concept and then find people or things that match these characteristics.
d. Typical Case Sampling
Simply means trying to find the cases or people that seem the most common or usual. So, unlike maximum variation sampling, you aren't trying to identify a wide range of behaviors or settings, but only those that are the most typical or common.
Goal is simply to study what occurs the most.
e. Critical Case Sampling
Sometimes we are interested in studying a particular situation or group of people because they are unusual or problematic.
In other words, you select cases or groups because they are not typical of what commonly happens. In other words, you are interested in only studying the extremes.
Now keep in mind that these sampling techniques are not based upon principles of random sampling (i.e., not every group or case in the population has an equal chance of being selected), therefore researchers need to be careful about make generalizations beyond what was actually studied.
However, remember the goal of qualitative
research rarely involves trying to make broad generalizations,
rather qualitative research attempts to document a particular way
of life at a particular place and time. So, in most cases the
sampling techniques used are appropriate.
E. Collecting Data
Now that we have talked about the general things that need to be thought about or done before research starts, we need to talk about what actually happens when qualitative researchers collect data.
These are the general steps that are taken when actually making observations.
Issues to be addressed.
1. What was the researchers role?
from complete participant to complete observer.
When doing qualitative analysis, one should always keep in mind the issues of reactivity. That is, how did the researcher's presence, whether as an observer or participant influence what was observed?
Keep in mind that different researcher roles allow access to different kinds of information. For example, complete participant allows access to private information.
However, also keep in mind that different roles influence what happens as well. Sometimes participants can influence what actually happens and observing others often influences what they do.
In short, in qualitative research, the researcher's role should be explicitly stated.
Moreover, researchers should report any past experiences or background information that might bias their observations.
In short, you need to be very clear about what experiences you are bringing to the field that might have an influence on how you react and influence the observations you make.
Should also report how access to the group or individuals was gained.
How access was gained can also influence what was observed. In particular, researcher should address who granted access, and how access was gained.
Did the entire group agree to the study -- did a few powerful individuals -- a single person -- grant the researcher access? What influence did this have over the study?
In other words, were subjects forced to participate because someone in charge said so, or was the researcher welcomed by the entire group.
Moreover, how access was granted is also very important.
What purpose was behind the decision to allow the researcher in?
Were promises made to the group? For example, often researchers are provided access as long as they provide some training or feedback in return.
What exactly did the group expect to get out of the researcher and how might this impact what was observed?
2. Describe the people or events being observed.
Provide a detailed account of who or what was observed.
Again, be sure to mention what people's
possible motives were for being studied, and how their motives
may have influenced your outcomes.
3. Where did the research take place?
Describe the setting in which the observations were made.
In particular, describe how the setting may have influenced what was observed.
4. Exactly what was observed?
What were the exact behaviors that were being observed.
Provide specific details regarding the types of information obtained -- information about people's behavior -- the types of information obtained during interviews -- and the types of informed gleaned from observing artifacts.
Simply describe exactly what was observed and
how these observations were made.
5. How was information recorded?
Must establish a protocol or procedures for recording information obtained.
Describe when and how information was recorded.
Was information recorded while it was being observed, or taped during the interview. Or was information recorded immediately after it was obtained.
Specify how much time passed from the time the information was obtained and when it was actually recorded.
Also describe in detail how the information was recorded.
Were notes taken?
Was a video camera used?
Were interviews tape recorded?
Specify exactly how observations were recorded.
6. How was data analyzed?
Describe how the data was interpreted.
In qualitative research, data analyses is not a separate phase of investigation. Often data is interpreted as it is collected.
Specify what interpretations were made and how those interpretations were reached.
Describe the reasoning or the process by which interpretations were made.
Summary
That is the overall process of how qualitative research is conducted. As you can see, it is a very flexible and adaptive approach.
It is a very responsive approach in the sense that adjustments are constantly being made based upon what is going on or what is discovered in the field.
Moreover, as you can tell, there are no hard
and fast rules about what can and can't be done. It is not a very
structured approach in the sense that everyone must apply the
same procedures in the exact same way.
F. How does one evaluate a qualitative research project?
No strict guidelines for evaluating qualitative research.
But general rules of thumb:
Does the interpretation offered make sense and is it coherent?
Does the interpretation reveal an insiders point of view?
Does the interpretation reveal the complexities of common situations (that "ah ha" feeling)?