1. Qualitative Research is concerned with:

Early forms of research originated in the natural sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, geology and wanted to observe and measure in some way in order to gain understanding. Quantitative research refers to observations and measurements that can be made objectively and repeated by other researchers. Along with the development of social sciences: psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc, they were interested in studying human behaviour and the social world. The social sciences found it difficult to measure human behaviour in the simpler quantitative methods, therefore qualitative research methods were developed in order to look beyond how, how often and how many...it looks at why and attempts to further and deepen our understanding of the social world.

Qualitative research methods:

1. are concerned with opinions, feelings and experiences2. describes social phenomena as they occur naturally - no attempt is made to manipulate

the situation - just understand and describe3. understanding is sought by taking a holistic perspective / approach, rather than looking at

a set of variables4. qualitative research data is used to help us to develop concepts and theories that help us

to understand the social world - which is an inductive approach to the development of theory, rather than a deductive approach that quantitative research takes - ie. Testing theories that have already been proposed.

5. Qualitative data is collected through direct encounters i.e. through interview or observation and is rather time consuming

Qualitative research is concerned with '...developing explanations of social phenomena...'

1. The world in which we live2. Why things are the way they are 3. Concerned with social aspects of our world4. Seeks to answer questions about

1. Why people behave the way they do2. How opinions and attitudes are formed3. How people are affected by the events that go on around them4. How and why cultures have developed in the way they have5. The differences between social groups

5. Qualitative questions:

1. How2. Why3. What

Data collection approaches for qualitative research usually involves:

1. Direct interaction with individuals on a one to one basis

2. Or direct interaction with individuals in a group setting

Qualitative research data collection methods are time consuming, therefore data is usually collected from a smaller sample than would be the case for quantitative approaches - therefore this makes qualitative research more expensive.

The benefits of the qualitative approach is that the information is richer and has a deeper insight into the phenomenon under study

The main methods for collecting qualitative data are:

1. Individual interviews2. Focus groups3. Observations4. Action Research

The Nature of Qualitative Research

There is no single wellspring of qualitative research from which to draw for setting grand strategy for evaluating NSF programs. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods is a matter of emphasis more than a matter of boundary. In each ethnographic or naturalistic or phenomenological or hermeneutic or holistic study, i.e., in each qualitative study, enumeration and recognition of differences in amount have a place. And in each statistical survey and controlled experiment, in each quantitative study, natural-language description and researcher interpretation are expected. Perhaps the most important differences in emphasis are twofold: the distinction between aiming for explanation and aiming for understanding; and the distinction between the personal and impersonal role of the researcher.

Experiential understanding. The distinction among aims, an epistemological distinction, fundamentally separates these two forms of inquiry. The distinction is not derived from the distinction between quantitative versus qualitative. The distinction between inquiry for making explanations versus inquiry for promoting understanding has been nicely developed by philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright in his book, Explanation and Understanding (1971). He acknowledged that explanations are intended to promote understanding and understanding is often expressed in terms of explanation--but they are epistemologically quite different. Von Wright emphasized the difference between formalizations of cause and effect and the informal understandings of experience.

5. It is a distinction something like that between teaching and learning. Preparing to teach in didactic fashion is different from preparing experiential opportunities for learners. Quantitative research tends to be an effort to improve the theoretical comprehension of the researchers who in turn present it to their colleagues, students, and diverse audiences. Qualitative research tends to be an effort to generate descriptions and situational

interpretations of phenomena which the researcher can offer colleagues, students, and others for modifying their own understandings of the phenomena (Stake and Trumbull, 1982).

6. Generalizations. Quantitative research methods have grown out of scientific search for grand theory. To establish generalizations that hold over diverse situations, most social-science-oriented researchers make observations in diverse situations. They try to eliminate the merely situational, letting contextual effects "balance each other out." They try to nullify context in order to find the most general and pervasive explanatory relationships.

7. Most program evaluation work has been dominated by this search for grand explanation. Employment of formal measurement and statistical analysis, i.e., quantification, has occurred in order to permit simultaneous study of a large number of dissimilar cases, in order to put the researcher in a position to make formal generalizations about the program. The inappropriateness of a basic science approach for program evaluation has been raised by Michael Scriven (1978) and Lee Cronbach (1982) on the grounds of the particularity of the program, its situationality, and its political context, but both of them have continued to endorse a metric and instrumental orientation to evaluation. Both have emphasized the evaluator's responsibility for authoring program specific descriptions and interpretations.

8. Emphasis on interpretation. Qualitative evaluation specialists such as Egon Guba, Yvonna Lincoln, and myself, rely heavily on direct interpretation of events and less on interpreted measurements. All research has an orientation to interpretation but with standard quantitative designs there is effort to limit the role of personal interpretation for that period between the time the design is set and the time the data are collected. Standard qualitative designs call for the persons most responsible for interpretations to be in the field, making observations, and making interpretations simultaneously.

9. The difference is both cause for and attributable to the nature of the research question. In quantitative studies, research questions typically embody a relationship between a small number of variables. For example, "Is there an enduring relationship between variable A, e.g., student achievement, and variable B, e.g., the training of the teachers, over a great variety of conditions C, e.g., classroom and community situations? Efforts are made to operationally bound the inquiry, to define the variables, and to minimize the importance of interpretation until data are analyzed. At the outset, it is important to interpret how relationship between variables would reduce weaknesses in explanation and at closing, it is important for the researcher to modify generalizations about the variables, and in between times, it is important not to let interpretation change the plan of the study.

10. In qualitative studies, research questions typically orient to unstudied cases or phenomena, seeking patterns of unanticipated as well as expected relationship. For example, "What happens to personal relationships among teachers in this special project P when they are obligated to emphasize a problem solving pedagogy?" Or if the project had been implemented sometime in the past, what happened? The dependent variables are not operationally defined, situational conditions are not known or controlled, even the independent variables are expected to develop in unexpected ways. It is essential to have the interpretative powers of the research team in immediate touch with developing events and ongoing revelations, partly to redirect observations and to pursue emerging issues. Thus the allocation of resources is different. Reliance on carefully developed instruments

and redundancy of observations typical in a quantitative study give way to placement of the most skilled researchers directly in contact with the phenomena and making much more subjective claims as to the meanings of data.

11. In his outstanding summary of the nature of qualitative study, Frederick Erickson (1986) claimed that the primary characteristic of qualitative research is the centrality of interpretation. He said that the findings are not just findings but "assertions." Given intense interaction of researcher with persons in the field and elsewhere, given a constructivist orientation to knowledge, given the attention to participant intentionality and sense of self, however descriptive the report, the researcher ultimately comes to share a personal view. Erickson drew attention to the ethnographers' traditional emphasis on emic issues, those concerns and values recognized in the behavior and language of the people being studied (Geertz, 1973), "thick description," alternative interpretations, and "multiple realities" are expected. Ongoing attention to complex meanings is extremely difficult when the instruments of data-gathering are objectively-interpretable checklists, survey items. The ongoing interpretive role of the researcher is prominent in the work of qualitative research.

12. Other characteristics of qualitative research. In addition to its orientation away from cause-and-effect explanation and toward personal interpretation, qualitative inquiry is distinguished by its emphasis on holistic treatment of phenomena (Schwandt, in press). I have remarked already on the epistemology of qualitative researchers as existential (non-determinant) and constructivist. These two views are correlated with an expectation that phenomena are intricately related to many coincidental actions and that understanding them requires a wide sweep of contexts: temporal and spatial, historical, political, economic, cultural, social, personal.

13. Thus the case, the activity, the event are seen as unique as well as common. Understanding it requires an understanding of other cases, activities and events, but also an emphasis on its uniqueness. Such uniqueness is established not particularly by comparing it on a number of variables, there may be few ways in which this one strays from the norm, but the collection of features, the sequence of happenings is seen by people close at hand as in many ways unprecedented, a critical uniqueness. Readers are drawn easily to this sense of uniqueness by providing experiential accounts.

14. For all the intrusion into habitats and personal affairs, qualitative researchers are non-interventionists. They try not to draw attention to themselves or their work. Other than positioning themselves, they avoid creating situations to test their hypotheses. They try to observe the ordinary and they try to observe it long enough to comprehend what, for this case, ordinary means. For them, naturalistic observation has been the primary medium of acquaintance. When they cannot see for themselves, they ask others who have seen. When there are formal record kept, they search the documents. But they favor a personal capture of the experience, so they can interpret it, recognize its contexts, puzzle the many meanings while still there, and pass along an experiential, naturalistic account for readers to participate in some of the same reflection.

15. Recognition of risks. Qualitative study has everything wrong with it its detractors claim. The contributions toward an improved and disciplined science are slow and tendentious. New questions are more frequent than old answers. The results pay off little in the advancement of social practice. The ethical risks are substantial. And the cost is high.

16. The effort to promote a subjective research paradigm is a given. Subjectivity is not seen as a failing to be eliminated but as as essential element of understanding. And understanding frequently will be misunderstanding, by the researchers and by their readers. The misunderstanding will occur because the researcher-interpreters are unaware of their own intellectual shortcomings and because of the weaknesses in protocol which fail to purge misinterpretations. Qualitative researchers have a respectable concern for validation of observations, they have routines for "triangulation" (Denzin, 1970) which approximate in purpose those in the quantitative fields, but they do not have the protocols which put subjective misunderstandings to stiff enough a test.

17. The phenomena being studied are often long in episode and evolving in nature. Long is the period of time to come to understand what is going on. The work is labor intensive and the costs are great. For most of the studies, these are labors of love. Many of the findings are esoteric. The worlds of commerce and social service benefit all to little from the investments in formal studies. More may come for those who study their own shops and systems by these methods but they are unlikely to bring many of the disciplined views of the specialist into play.

18. These are personal studies. The issues of other human beings quickly become partly issues of the present research. Privacy is always at risk. Entrapment is regularly on the horizon, as the researcher, a dedicated non-interventionist, raises questions and options previously not considered by the respondent. A tolerable frailty of conduct nearby becomes questionable ethic in distant narrative. Some of us "go native," accommodating to viewpoint and valuation of the people at the site, then reacting more critically when back again with academic colleagues (Stake, 1986).

19. It is not simply a matter of whether the gains in perspective are worth these costs. The attraction of intensive and interpretive study are apparent, even while they were considered unworthy of respect by many research agencies and faculties for many years, and by some still are. Researchers are compelled to inquire. They are controlled by the rules of funding and their disciplines, but that controls only whether or not they will report their use of qualitative methods -- all researchers will use them. There are times when they are going to be interpretive, holistic, naturalistic, and disinterested in cause, and then by definition they will be qualitative inquirers.

 

The Nature of Qualitative   Research

The Nature of Qualitative Research• The term qualitative research refers to studies that investigate the quality of the relationships, activities, situations, or materials.• The natural setting is a direct source of data, and the researcher is a key part of the instrumentation process in qualitative research.• Qualitative data are collected mainly in the form of words or pictures and seldom involve numbers. Content analysis a primary method of data analysis.• Qualitative researchers are especially interested in how things accur and particularly in the perspectives of the subjects of a study• Qualitative researchers do not, usually formulate a hypothesis beforehand and then seek to test it. Rather they allow hypotheses to emerge as a study develops.• Qualitative and quantitative research differs in the philosophic assumptions that underlie the two approaches.

Steps Involve In Qualitative Research• The steps involve in conducting a qualitative study are not as distinct as they are in quantitative studies. They often overlap and sometimes are even conducted concurrently.• All qualitative studies begin with a foreshadowed problem; the particular phenomenon the researcher is interested in investigating.• Researchers who engage in a qualitative study of some type usually select a purposive sample. Several types of purposive sample exist• There is no treatment in qualitative study, nor is there any manipulation of variables.• The collection of data in a qualitative study is ongoing• Conclusion are drawn continuously throughout the course of a qualitative study

Approaches to qualitative research• A biographical study tells the story of the special events in the life of a single individual.• A researcher studies an individual’s reactions to a particular phenomenon in a phenomenological study. He or she attempts to identify the commonalities among different individual perceptions.• In a grounded theory study, a researcher forms a theory inductively from data collected as a part of the study.• A case study is a detailed study of one or (at most) a few individuals or other social units, such as a classroom, a school, or a neighborhood. It can also be a study of an event, an activity, or an ongoing process.

Generalization in qualitative research• Generalizing is possible in qualitative research, but it is of a type different from that found in quantitative studies. Most likely it will be done by interested practitioners

Ethics and qualitative research• The identities of all participants in a qualitative study should be protected, and they should be treated with respect.

Reconsidering Qualitative and quantitative research• Aspects of both qualitative and quantitative research often are used together in a study. Increased attention is being given to such mixed- method studies.• Whether qualitative or quantitative research is the most appropriate boils down to what the researcher wants to find out.

Why do qualitative   research?

Posted on February 16, 2011 by jasonhopper

Compared to quantitative research a qualitative studies generally focus on a much smaller sample, do not isolate variables, and results are almost by definition impossible to reproduce. So, why bother?  At its base I think that qualitative methods are epistemologically very similar to quantitative studies and can often bring important insights not found in quantitative studies. The point here is not that one is better than the other, but we need both.

Howard Becker makes the argument that the epistemological aims of qualitative research are not fundamentally different from quantitative work—its just that the benchmarks, questions, and methods tend to be different. Becker labels these principles breadth, precision, and accuracy. Instead of isolating variables, qualitative work generally tries to look at a broad range of interconnected processes or causes. Rather than test a hypothesis, qualitative research tends to engage in a much more dialectic process between the questions asked and data observed. New questions and information gathered in the process of research shape the questions as the research is being done. And in place of reproducible results, qualitative researchers generally aim at accuracy—getting at the everyday realities of some social phenomenon and studying important questions as they are really practiced.

The actual research part of a qualitative study usually relies on a combination of participant observation, interviews, and historical research. On the most basic level this means both understanding the specific background context of a research site and also spending a lot of time with the community one wants to research. In other words, in order to meet the standards of qualitative research, you have to “be there”. For anthropology, Malinowski is the guy attributed with pushing this idea. He argued that to truly understand a society one had to spend enough time there to learn the language and acclimate to the situation. When Becker refers to accuracy, this is what he means—trying to get close to lived reality.

Malinowski pushed researchers to get off their verandas

Although time consuming to conduct, qualitative research tends to offer forth a wealth of varied information on a small case or set of cases over a broad set of data. The breadth Becker refers to means being open to the multiple causes of every event. Well done qualitative research is limited in its scope, but very rich in depth. It can help us see how many different causes and actions lead to specific outcomes.

Likewise, a qualitative approach can point out the limitations of our own theories and categories. Allowing the research questions to adjust with new information, what Becker calls precision, means that we can be more sure we’re actually getting at what we say we’re getting at. Qualitative researchers are also often acutely aware of how their own preconceptions and presence may affect a situation. This attention can, I think, lead to better research that helps clarify our vision.

So what are the advantages of such an approach? In short, it helps us see how general forces play out in specific circumstances and to ask questions that can’t be easily put into numbers. Qualitative research focuses attention on the contingent nature of social reality. Institutions, technologies, and broad social forces matter, but their effects are always specific to a particular context. The case-study nature of qualitative research allows a focus on how things went down, how general forces and individual wills played out in a specific situation. This impulse is incredibly relevant for development work. The video Andrew posted about several failed development technologies in some ways follows this point—we need to pay attention to affects in particular contexts and under real human conditions.

In practice this is always a lot sloppier, imperfect, and ethically complicated. Caveats in place, what I will show you over my next couple of posts are some examples of well conducted qualitative research that can help shape the way we think about development.

Qualitative ResearchRuth G. McRoy

Qualitative research is concerned with nonstatistical methods of inquiry and analysis of social phenomena. It draws on an inductive process in which themes and categories emerge through analysis of data collected by such techniques as interviews, observations, videotapes, and case studies. Samples are usually small and are often purposively selected. Qualitative research uses detailed descriptions from the perspective of the research participants themselves as a means of examining specific issues and problems under study.

Qualitative research differs from quantitative research in that the latter is characterized by the use of large samples, standardized measures, a deductive approach, and highly structured interview instruments to collect data for hypothesis testing (Marlow, 1993). In contrast to qualitative research, in quantitative research easily quantifiable categories are typically generated before the study and statistical techniques are used to analyze the data collected. Both qualitative and quantitative research are designed to build knowledge; they can be used as complementary strategies.

DEFINITIONS Qualitative research is referred to by a variety of terms, reflecting several research approaches. Field research is often used interchangeably with qualitative research to describe systematic observations of social behavior with no preconceived hypotheses to be tested (Rubin & Babbie, 1993). Hypotheses emerge from the observation and interpretation of human behavior, leading to further observations and the generation of new hypotheses for exploration.

Qualitative research is also referred to as naturalistic research or inquiry (Taylor, 1977) into everyday living. Direct observations are made of human behavior in everyday life. Drawing on symbolic interaction theory (Blumer, 1969), naturalistic researchers believe that gaining knowledge from sources that have “intimate familiarity” (Lofland, 1976) with an issue is far better than the “objective” distancing approach that supposedly characterizes quantitative approaches (Haworth, 1984). Zurcher (1983) used this technique as he examined such common occurrences as riding on an airplane or attending a football game.

Ethnography—a term more commonly associated with anthropology and sociology than with social work—is used in qualitative research to describe a field study of a particular site or population undertaken to better understand the culture from the perspective of that population. In ethnographic studies, teams of researchers collect data by observing and interviewing participants over time. Typically, field notes are taken and life histories and case studies are derived from extensive contact with the group under study. Examples of the ethnographic approach include Rainwater (1970) and Liebow (1967). Recently, social work researchers have used participant observation and interviews in such settings as residential treatment centers (Penzerro, 1992) and housing projects (Lein, 1994) to study foster care drift and persistent poverty.

HISTORY Although social work since its beginnings has been involved with the study of natural occurrences and the interaction between human behavior and the social context, only minor acknowledgment has been made of the contributions of qualitative methodology. Almost since 1915, when Abraham Flexner asserted that social work lacked a core of knowledge derived from the scientific process (Austin, 1978; Bruno, 1958), social work researchers have been striving to demonstrate strict adherence to the objective methods characteristic of the hard sciences, and much social work research has relied on the positivistic approach, using quantitative methods. This situation is exemplified by the Cambridge–Somerville youth delinquency prevention study, in which Powers and Witmer (1951), using traditional social science quantitative methodology, applied an innovative experimental model to assess effectiveness of social services. The study has been cited as a landmark social work research project. Although Powers and Witmer found no significant differences in terms of delinquency records and social adjustment between the treatment and control groups, Witmer, in a supplemental study, used qualitative methodology in intensive case studies and found that some children definitely benefited from the intervention (Zimbalist, 1977). Witmer's use of qualitative methods was an early indicator that qualitative techniques could be used to examine social processes that might be missed by traditional quantitative measures.

Nevertheless, social work continued to emphasize quantitative techniques. Research was heavily influenced by the methodologies of the natural sciences. Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, numerous doctoral programs in social work were established, and formal research courses in the scientific method became a major component of the curriculum (Austin, 1978). And as social work strove for greater legitimacy through the development of empirically based theories and proof-oriented models for greater accountability and effectiveness, “discovery-oriented” qualitative research was considered to have little scientific merit (Karger, 1983).

In the late 1970s, Taylor (1977) advocated four alternative approaches to social work research, among them qualitative methods. He asserted that naturalistic inquiry is a perfect technique for a profession that deals not just with the expected and easily measurable but also with the unexpected events that are characteristic of human experiences. Taylor noted that when field researchers use quantitative methods to “increase the precision of observations” (p. 121), qualitative and quantitative approaches complement one another.

In the 1980s, debate about the use of quantitative methods as the preeminent social work strategy was ongoing (Haworth, 1984; Hudson, 1982; Karger, 1983; Reid, 1987). As social workers tried to meet the requirements of logical positivists for experimental designs with objective measures, it was found that many research questions that did not fit neatly into a quantitative research design were not investigated (Heineman, 1981). Some researchers acknowledge that qualitative strategies are appropriate for exploratory or preliminary inquiry into a topic. Others suggest that once there is an organized body of scholars who use a well-delineated qualitative methodology, more serious attention will be given to the qualitative approach (Karger, 1983).

Although debate continues in the 1990s, and the paradigm of scientific inquiry in social work is still primarily viewed to mean quantitative methodology, the merits of qualitative methods are now being acknowledged by most authors of leading social work research texts (Babbie, 1989;

Chambers, Wedel, & Rodwell, 1992; Grinnell, 1988; Marlow, 1993; Rubin & Babbie, 1993; Sherman & Reid, 1994), and some qualitative techniques are covered in the research courses of a growing number of schools of social work.

ADVANTAGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS A number of advantages of qualitative methodologies for social work have been noted in the literature. Descriptive, inductive, and unobtrusive techniques for data collection are viewed as compatible with the knowledge and values of the social work profession (Epstein, 1988). For situations in which social workers are faced with issues and problems that are not amenable to quantitative examination, qualitative methods have been advocated (Sherman & Reid, 1994). The social–psychological bases of qualitative research suggest that it is compatible with the person-in-environment paradigm of social work practice (Epstein, 1988; Taylor, 1977).

Gilgun (1994) suggested that qualitative approaches are similar in method to clinical social work assessments. Clinicians rely on interviews to gather data on a client's issues in the context of the environment. A clinician goes over a series of hunches and working hypotheses that are based on observations made through ongoing contact with the client. Qualitative researchers, like clinicians, are trained to look at each case individually, without imposing preconceived notions or attempting to generalize to all clients having a particular problem. Qualitative researchers maintain field notes and documents on their research (Gilgun, 1994; Marlow, 1993), just as clinicians keep running accounts of contact with a client in the form of process recordings or case records.

In studies of social processes of complex human systems such as families, organizations, and communities, qualitative methodology may be the most appropriate research strategy (Reid, 1987). Scholars of the family now extol the benefits of qualitative methodologies in gaining Verstehen (Weber, 1947), or understanding, of the dynamic processes, meanings, communication patterns, experiences, and individual and family constructions of reality (Daly, 1992). Field settings and social service agencies provide unique opportunities for the qualitative study of social processes.

Qualitative approaches also have the advantages of flexibility, in-depth analysis, and the potential to observe a variety of aspects of a social situation (Babbie, 1986). A qualitative researcher conducting a face-to-face interview can quickly adjust the interview schedule if the interviewee's responses suggest the need for additional probes or lines of inquiry in future interviews. Moreover, by developing and using questions on the spot, a qualitative researcher can gain a more in-depth understanding of the respondent's beliefs, attitudes, or situation. During the course of an interview or observation, a researcher is able to note changes in bodily expression, mood, voice intonation, and environmental factors that might influence the interviewee's responses. Such observational data can be of particular value when a respondent's body language runs counter to the verbal response given to an interview question.

DESIGNS, PROCEDURES, AND ANALYSES Grounded Theory Qualitative research is theory generating. The development of theory from data is based on Glaser and Strauss's (1967) process of constant comparisons. Because theory derived from this approach is “discovered, developed, and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 23), it is known as grounded theory. Although the grounded theory approach was developed by sociologists, it is used by qualitative researchers in social work to systematically investigate an issue and to organize data.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) identified two types of grounded theory: substantive and formal. Substantive grounded theory is developed when hypotheses are based on one area of inquiry. Formal grounded theory is developed when hypotheses apply across several areas of research inquiry with different sample populations and settings (Gilgun, 1992).

Procedures Under the grounded theory approach, cases are selected by a sampling process in which the researcher identifies new cases that are similar to previous cases. When these cases generate no new insights, the process is repeated with newly selected cases that yield different insights, again until no new insights are noted.

Gilgun (1990) suggested these steps: 1.  identification of area under investigation 2.  literature review 3.  selection of parameters of study 4.  collection of data 5.  comparison of patterns of first case with those of second case 6.  development of working hypothesis as common patterns emerge across interviews 7.  formulation of additional questions and modification of questions, based on analysis 8.  continuation of theoretical sampling 9.  review of relevant literature when patterns appear to stabilize 10.linking of relevant literature to the empirically grounded hypotheses 11.testing of theoretical formulations derived from preceding step 12.revision of theoretical formulations as needed to fit empirical patterns in each subsequent step. (p. 11)

The process ends when the researcher reaches “theoretical saturation,” the point at which no new data are emerging (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Through this procedure emerging theories are grounded in data and are linked to other theories and research (Gilgun, 1992).

When cases do not fit into the common pattern (“negative” cases), researchers typically assess each to determine whether the case is a result of expected variation, the researcher's failure to consider the total range of behavior or situations that might fit a particular category, or truly exceptional (Marlow, 1993). In the presentation of findings, “negative” cases and common patterns are illustrated.

Structured interviews. Structured interviews. Limited time and financial resources may lead some qualitative researchers to pursue other data collection techniques, such as a structured interview schedule with open-ended questions. Drawing on the theoretical and research literature, such questions may be formulated and organized in advance to address a specific research topic. Studies of adoption dissolution, for example, might include questions posed to adoptive parents that focus on such themes as parental motivation for adoption, knowledge of the child's past, initial attitudes toward the child, use of therapeutic resources, development of problematic behavior, and factors leading to dissolution. Interviewers are expected to take field notes or to keep a field diary of observations made during the interview.

Data reduction. Data reduction. Interview questions and responses are typically tape-recorded and then transcribed verbatim before analysis is begun. Transcription is extremely time-consuming (Marlow, 1993). Due to the large amount of data that can be generated in qualitative research, a data reduction process must be used to aid analysis. This procedure includes organizing the data; identifying emerging themes, categories, and patterns; and testing hypotheses against the data. Either “indigenous” or “analyst-constructed” typologies may be constructed. In indigenous categories, the language of respondents is used to label types of processes (Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Patton, 1990). For example, in a qualitative study of the development of emotional disturbance in adopted adolescents, researchers used “elbow babies”—the language of the participants—to classify infants who pushed away from close contact with family members. Ongoing analysis of data revealed other instances of this phenomenon (McRoy, Grotevant, & Zurcher, 1988).

In analyst-constructed categories, the researcher attaches a label to observed recurring events. For example, in Matocha's (1992) qualitative study of the needs of caregivers of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients, four categories or domains of needs of caregivers were identified: physical, spiritual, social, and economic. Matocha's case study data focused on each of these identified categories.

Narrative descriptions. Narrative descriptions. Narrative descriptions of data collected through interviews, observations, and case records are also used in qualitative analysis. Narrative descriptions may be developed in the form of case studies of a particular interviewee or agency for use in social work practice or program evaluation (Marlow, 1993).

Analysis Content analysis is often used in qualitative and quantitative research methods. Some researchers view content analysis as a technique to quantify manifest (surface-level) descriptive data (Allen-Meares, 1985), in which categories are developed, content is coded, and category counts are conducted. Hollis (1972), studying communications in social work interviews, categorized specific statements according to type of communication. Qualitative content analysis typically does not transform the content into numeric patterns. Instead, recurrent themes, and typologies and illustrations of particular issues, are used. When qualitative methods are used in evaluating the effectiveness of social work practice, a

purposive sampling approach may be taken in which one or a few cases are selected for intensive interviewing and analysis. Qualitative interviews can augment single-subject studies by exploring variables other than a specific intervention that might have affected the client outcome. Similarly, in program evaluation studies, qualitative  methods allow the researcher to focus on the process of “how something happens” rather than on just the “outcomes or results” that would be more characteristic of quantitative designs. Program evaluation studies involving qualitative approaches focus on participants' perceptions and their experiences in the program (Bogdan & Taylor, 1990; Patton, 1990; Rubin & Babbie, 1993).

Naturalistic evaluation, which is now often referred to as constructivism (Chambers et al., 1992), emphasizes multiple constructions of reality in the evaluation process of social programs. It involves an interactive approach in which the “direction of inquiry is shaped through involvement with the participants” (p. 293). The research design and process emerge through interaction with participants in the setting. Although a conceptual base may guide the evaluation, grounded theory, based on the data, emerges through consideration of multiple realities and perspectives.

ISSUES IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Reliability and Validity Among the most cited criticisms of qualitative research are the presumed lack of reliability and validity of its findings. In regard to field research, critics question the ability of qualitative research to replicate observations (reliability) or to obtain correct answers or correct impressions of the phenomenon under study (validity) (Kirk & Miller, 1986). Other criticisms concern the reactive effects of the observer's or the interviewer's presence on the situation being studied and selective perception or bias on the part of the researcher. Also of concern has been the researcher's inability to observe all factors that might influence the situation under study (McCall & Simmons, 1969; Schaffir & Stebbins, 1991). For example, agency time, staff, and financial constraints may limit an agency's ability to provide the researcher with the opportunity to review the entire range of cases pertaining to a particular topic.

Qualitative researchers have addressed these issues in several ways. Purposive sampling, based on reviews of the literature and knowledge of the subject area, has been used to select cases under study, rather than as an attempt to observe or collect data from all respondents, who may be affected by the phenomena under study. Individual bias has been addressed by using teams of researchers to read cases or make observations. To ensure validity of interviews or observations, some qualitative researchers use the technique of “member validation,” in which the respondent is given a copy of the observations or interview to provide feedback (Schaffir & Stebbins, 1991).

Although quantitative researchers are likely to address threats to validity through such techniques as random selection of participants and the use of controls, qualitative researchers are more likely to address validity throughout the data collection and analysis processes. As qualitative researchers review more cases, seeking common themes and patterns and testing emerging hypotheses, they are in essence working to ensure validity (Maxwell, 1992).

Qualitative researchers also confront issues of reliability and validity through triangulation—the use of different strategies to approach the same topic of investigation. Some researchers use

multiple measures of the same phenomenon. For example, to measure self-concept, investigators may use a standardized instrument such as the Harter Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1985) as well as the Twenty-Statements Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954), an open-ended measure. Observations of multiple comparison groups, cross-site analyses, and acquisition of multiple viewpoints of the sample phenomena are all techniques used to improve the reliability of findings (Jick, 1983). In data analysis, coding teams with high interrater reliability scores are used to code each interview and thus improve reliability of findings (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

Ethical Issues Due to the subjective nature of data collection, interpretation, and analysis in qualitative research, there appear to be more ethical dilemmas and concerns with confidentiality associated with this method than with quantitative research. A qualitative researcher interviewing female-headed families on welfare, for example, may gather data on unreported financial support from fathers. Despite assurances of confidentiality, participating families may feel at risk when they reveal such support to the researcher. It is the researcher's ethical responsibility to maintain confidentiality, but there have been cases in which research data have been subpoenaed. Despite attempts to protect respondents through the use of pseudonyms, identities sometimes may be decoded.

The security of sensitive and potentially identifiable research materials contained on computer disks, in mainframes, and on paper is a persistent issue. When several people are involved in text analysis and the development of coding schemes, or in grant-funded projects that require databases to be made available to other researchers to conduct secondary analyses of computer-generated or stored data, there are risks associated with the confidentiality of data. The issue of who has rights to the data has not been resolved (Fielding & Lee, 1992).

The deception of respondents by researchers is an ethical issue in ethnographic studies. For instance, in some studies of people living in homeless shelters, a researcher has become a participant, interacting with residents while giving them the impression that the researcher too is homeless. Some researchers have responded to the ethical issue in this type of data gathering by taking on the role of participant-as-observer, in which the identities of the researchers are known to the respondents (Rubin & Babbie, 1993).

Diversity Qualitative methods are particularly appropriate for use with people who are more comfortable responding in an interview format than to a standardized survey questionnaire. Davis (1986) suggested that the gender of respondents should be a consideration in selecting a research strategy because many women may prefer qualitative research techniques to quantitative approaches because they prefer opportunities to discuss subjects in context.

Myers (1977) suggested that some members of ethnic groups, low-income populations, or others who may be socially distant from the researcher are more likely to participate in the in-depth interviews characteristic of qualitative research than to complete a structured questionnaire or survey. To enhance the validity of results in research with diverse populations, research questions must be clearly constructed and must not be subject to different cultural interpretations. Also, due to the subjective nature of qualitative research it is important for the researcher to

continually engage in self-examination to be certain that his or her own biases and stereotypes are not influencing the interpretation of the findings. Conversely, because qualitative analysis allows researchers to explore in depth all factors that might affect a particular issue, this strategy permits sensitive consideration of the complexities of human diversity (Marlow, 1993).

Use of Computers Recent advances in computer technology let qualitative researchers rapidly and efficiently gather, enter, and retrieve data. Some qualitative researchers take computer notebooks to the field, in which they enter notes directly (Babbie, 1986; Pfaffenberger, 1988). Although many word-processing packages and database managers allow for simple word or phrase searches, specific qualitative analysis programs for text retrieval, such as Ethnograph, ZyIndex, or Word Cruncher, create word lists, count frequency of occurrences, create indexes, and attach key words to words in text (Tesch, 1992).

Some qualitative researchers use computer programs to do a reliability check during data analysis. For example, after completing a personal search of a document for specific words or issues, a computer program is used to double-check the accuracy of the original analysis. Despite the advantages of computerized analysis, qualitative researchers engaged in theory construction must also undertake ongoing exploration of the data to identify patterns and categories that may be used as key words for computer searches.

FUTURE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Qualitative research methodology is receiving growing acceptance in the social work research community. Qualitative methods are becoming particularly popular among researchers working on family issues. A Qualitative Family Research Network was formed in the late 1980s, and an increasing number of social workers and family researchers exchange ideas on qualitative methodologies (Gilgun, 1990). Another indicator of the growing acceptance of qualitative research in social work practice is the recently established journal Research on Social Work Practice, which seeks manuscripts based on qualitative studies as well as on a combination of qualitative and quantitative research.

Clearly, quantitative and qualitative methodologies have different strengths and weaknesses, and the strategy taken should depend on the nature of the question being investigated. In many instances, both qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used in the same study. For example, standardized measures might be used to collect data in conjunction with open-ended interview questions. It is possible to code interview data using both qualitative and quantitative techniques and to report the results of both the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the same data set (McRoy et al., 1988). Qualitative strategies need not be limited to small-scale studies. Daly (1992) reported a technique for applying grounded theory principles in the design and analysis of a large national survey on adoption trends.

The close compatibility of qualitative research methods with social work practice techniques is likely to lead to greater use of qualitative strategies in practice evaluation. As more social work researchers network and refine and publish qualitative studies that clearly specify the techniques used, qualitative methodology is likely to receive even greater acceptance among social workers.

Compared to quantitative research a qualitative studies generally focus on a much smaller sample, do not isolate variables, and results are almost by definition impossible to reproduce. So, why bother?  At its base I think that qualitative methods are epistemologically very similar to quantitative studies and can often bring important insights not found in quantitative studies. The point here is not that one is better than the other,Rather than test a hypothesis, qualitative research tends to engage in a much more dialectic process between the questions asked and data observed.The actual research part of a qualitative study usually relies on a combination of participant observation, interviews, and historical research. On the most basic level this means both understanding the specific background context of a research site and also spending a lot of time with the community one wants to research. In other words, in order to meet the standards of qualitative research, you have to “be therequalitative research tends to offer forth a wealth of varied information on a small case or set of cases over a broad set of dataqualitative approach can point out the limitations of our own theories and categories.Qualitative researchers are also often acutely aware of how their own preconceptions and presence may affect a situation.