The nature of qualitative research

A fixed research frame may influence the data gathered. Although almost all research professionals subscribe to this notion, quantitative researchers tend to isolate the elements of the design that may bias the results and measure the probable impact. Qualitative researchers, by contrast, prefer “keeping structure to a minimum” (Bryman, p397), so that the data is free to express itself, as it is. This certainly means that qualitative research enquiries must, of their very nature, be much more open, much vaguer than many would like. However, the flexibility of this approach also allows them to incorporate unexpected events into the research design and adapt their theories as the research progresses.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 397

The criterion of trustworthiness was proposed by Guba & Lincoln (1994, cited on page 384) as a qualitative research alternative to quantitative measures of validity and reliability. Its four components are credibility (a counterpart to internal validity), transferability (a counterpart to external validity), dependability (to parallel reliability) and confirmability (as a parallel for objectivity). Qualitative researchers do, indeed, use terms like reliability and validity but usually not in the ways implied by quantitative research methodologies, and this provokes criticism. Guba and Lincoln’s terms are nuanced to suggest the inherent distinction of qualitative research as concentrating on human values.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 384-386

Quantitative research is concerned with quantities, so qualitative research must be concerned with qualities. These stem from the words people use rather than how often they say them or how many people say the same words. Qualitative research studies what people say and how they say it, in terms of tone of voice and accompanying gestures, for example. Various methods have been devised to gather this kind of data, including in-depth interviews, focus groups and participant observation/ethnography, whereby the researcher becomes immersed in a social setting to observe the culture of a group. Answers (a), (b) and (d) belong to quantitative research strategies.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 377,378

Following question nine, we could argue further that quantitative research is “incompatible with feminism” (Bryman, p403). Feminist researchers such as Mies (1993, cited on page 03) suggested that quantitative research either ignores women or buries them in statistics and Maynard (1998, cited on page 403) believed women’s voices are silenced because the predetermined categories of quantitative research emphasizes what is already known. By contrast, qualitative research allows women’s voices to be heard and empowers them by involving them in more egalitarian research relationships.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 403

Quantitative and qualitative research can be contrasted on various dimensions, as Bryman shows in Table 17.1 on page 401. Answers (a), (b) and (c) are expressive of three of these. It can be argued, however, that there is an affinity between qualitative research and feminist sensitivity. Since the fundamental philosophy of qualitative research is interpretivist, while that of quantitative research is generally positivist, it follows that interpretivism and feminism have similar, rather than opposite, dimensional values.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 400-402

Key concept 17.3 on page 385 gives a full answer to this question. Qualitative researchers are often keen to ascertain that there is a good correspondence between their interpretation of the findings and their participants’ experiences. Respondent validation is a way of ensuring this, by presenting the research participants with a report of the interview conducted with them, for example, and asking them for feedback on it. There are certain problems associated with respondent validation but the idea to keep in mind is that this process is an attempt to provide validity for the research from the very people who supplied the data.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 385

The discussion in question 7 should help us to realise that, whatever other criticisms may be levelled at qualitative research; being too rigid and inflexible cannot be one of them! This must be regarded, in fact, as its greatest strength. Qualitative research can be accused of not offering opportunities for replication studies. Here again, it is difficult to see how a particular study, which has adjusted to the emerging data, should be replicated, because any study should have the same flexibility in-built. Qualitative studies are subjective, of necessity. This is a feature of this kind of research so the criticism may not be as valid as “lack of transparency”. There is no excuse for not describing the basis on which participants were selected for a study nor for not reporting the precise process of analysis.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 398-400

One of the main “preoccupations” of qualitative researchers identified by Bryman (pages 394 and 395) is their emphasis on descriptions of social settings. This is important in that it allows us to understand the context in which events take place and the meanings that individuals give to their action. It is precisely because something in the scene gives meaning to the research participant that the researcher includes it in the overall description.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 394, 3955

Grounded theory was introduced by Glaser & Strauss (1967) as a strategy for generating theory from data. In other words, rather than imposing a rigid theoretical framework on the social world, qualitative researchers should gradually build their theories from the data. The ‘theory’ we end up with is ‘grounded’ in the data. (See chapter 24 for a full discussion). It follows that grounded theory uses an inductive approach, whereby concepts emerge from the data. They can then be redefined as hypotheses for further testing.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 381, Key concept 17.2

Blumer (1954, cited on pages 382 and 383) made a distinction between definitive concepts, which are used in quantitative research to define a concept in terms of measurable indicators, and sensitizing concepts, which should provide qualitative researchers with just a general sense of reference that is open to revision. The problem with ‘definitive’ concepts is that we may stop thinking further about them once we have established indicators. But, since these are also hypothetical, we really should refine them in the light of collected and analysed data. Quantitative research cannot tolerate this, because of its dependency on measurement validity, but qualitative research makes its unique contribution through willingness to “learn as we go”.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 382,383