Essay: Qualitative research

Qualitative research is a fundamental part of understanding our society, it aids in the discovery of social norms, confirms or refutes different hypotheses about society and is a crucial part of the development of knowledge in modern society. Qualitative research is a method among many others of how we describe and explain our social world, however, it is the principal way that we base our starting theories of society to later be examined. “The label ‘qualitative research’ is used as an umbrella term for a series of approaches to research in the social sciences” (Flick 2007). While quantitative research is draws more attention to the numerical aspect of research and can assist in establishing mathematical support for hypotheses, qualitative research tends towards the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of different experiences. Interviews and participant observation are two of the most popular approaches when conducting qualitative research. Interviews can be branched off into structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews, all of which have their own benefits and drawbacks as a research method. When a researcher uses interviews as their research method, a researcher will utilise all available meaning from the data collected. Although the effectiveness of interviews can be questioned depending on the situation or context in which the interview is being conducted, interviews are generally seen as an effective method of social research because of the authenticity of the interview process. Participant observation allows the researcher to see the ‘backstage culture’ of a particular group, therefore allowing the researcher to attain a more genuine opinion or conception on a particular matter. Participant observation encourages the researcher to observe more than just a select groups opinion, but also their behaviour, which helps the researcher understand why and how a group of people would have formed that opinion and come to that conclusion. In-depth interviews and participant observation offer different strengths and weaknesses depending as research methods that are highlighted depending on the topic being studied.
In-depth interviews are generally fairly loose, semi-structured interviews that are commonly referred to as ‘conversations with a purpose’ (Burgess, cited in Mason, 1998:38). This structure helps an interviewee feel more at ease, therefore encouraging them to talk for longer about the topic being researched. They can be used to study in more detail with particular interviewees topics that have been covered in wider surveys. Alternatively, they can be used as a part of an ethnographic approach to researching a topic. The in-depth interview allows the researcher to establish more than just the interviewees opinion. “The validity of an interview will depend on the purpose of the interview and on epistemological conceptions of objectivity and knowledge” (Kvale, 2007). Conducting an open or semi-structured interview aids the interviewer in establishing a good rapport with the interviewee, thus breaking down more barriers between the two. This part of qualitative research is significantly beneficial in further the research past simply a superficial level of communication between the interviewee and interviewer. The use of open-ended and flexible questions are essential to ensuring the interviewee offers a broader and more developed response. A more structured interview approach would prevent the interviewer from receiving a more considered response, therefore preventing them from understanding the interviewee’s interpretations of events, personal experiences or views and opinions on topics. The in-depth interview is more of an ontological approach to social research because it places a lot of value on the person’s knowledge and experience. Although some researchers question the ability to fully understand someone’s beliefs in that short an amount of time, others justify it by claiming that you are able to understand a certain portrayal or depiction of an interviewee’s character and thus, their opinions from an interview. A widely appreciated strength of the in-depth interview is its ability to be conducted even among controversial or complex topics. Welcoming the interviewee’s own language and voice on the topic draws out a significantly different response than that of someone being interviewed through a questionnaire. Additionally, this benefit of in-depth interviews is applied in times where an interviewee is interested in interviewing those in society who are not often given an opportunity to voice their opinion. Due to the variety of ways that qualitative interviews can be approached, it is also a popular choice for researchers looking to conduct interviews about sensitive topics. Interviews offer a chance to introduce the topic at a more appropriate speed and with more awareness of the nature of the conversation. With these points in mind, it is clear that the most worthwhile aspect of in-depth interviews is its ability to draw out deeper and more elaborate responses from the interviewee, that would not otherwise be available in other research methods. The interview process allows the researcher to form some level of a relationship with the interviewee and therefore enables them to formulate a better level of understanding of the different responses from each interviewee, making the future analysis of the data all the more informative.
The limitations of the in-depth interviews are fairly minimal, although each can be perceived as a valid reason to avoid using this method for research. “In a nutshell, researchers should however, choose the method that answers their research questions best, taking into consideration that the more accurate the researchers are when conducting and analysing the data, the more accurate the findings would be” (Alshenqeeti, 2014). Conducting in-depth interviews are incredibly time consuming, and require additional time to transcribe and analyse the data. The process may also require comparing different interviewees, structured interviews are easier to draw comparisons from, whereas semi-structured in-depth interviews have a tendency to become more personal and thus make it harder to compare. Additionally, the smaller number of interviewees make establishing a general result from the interviews quite challenging. The effectiveness of the interview can be called into question when the subject of bias is approached. By virtue of the in-depth interview being less standardised and more free flowing, the interviewer may not be aware that they are unintentionally bringing their own bias to the interview. Furthermore, due to in-depth interviews often venturing into unrelated areas, there is a possibility that it could bring up more personal topics in the interviewees life. This runs the risk of topics such as sexual orientation, disabilities or age being brought up which are unacceptable to bring up. Ultimately, in-depth interviews carry a great number of benefits in the field, but whether they are the suitable method for any research proposal is best reserved for the topic at hand.
Participant observation involves a researcher immersing themselves in a group of people for a period of time, allowing the researcher to develop a better understanding of the groups behaviour. It allows the researcher to listen and participate in conversation, thus ensuring more insight into the groups opinions or attitudes toward the matter at hand. The advantages of participant observation as a research method are multiple, there is a strong validity to this method because it produces rich data about how people really live and form opinions, which the researcher sees first hand. The researcher also gains a sense of empathy through developing personal relationships with the group. By being and living as a member of the group, the researcher is able to understand the groups viewpoints and the meaning behind their values, all of which is authentic data. There is room for flexibility with participant observation, allowing the researcher to change the direction of their research and ask questions they would not have thought to ask before. It gives them the freedom to explore different ideas or situations that may come up and help further develop their research. One of the principal advantages of using participant observation as a research method is that it allows the researcher to place themselves as a fellow member in group that would normally have more hesitation towards them. Becoming a member of the group aids the researcher in gaining a rapport and trust among the members. It is a suitable alternative to situations where questioning or interviews are not satisfactory.
The limitations of participant observation are fairly similar to those of the in-depth interview. There is the risk of bias, where the researcher may sympathise with the group and understand their point of view having spent more time with them. Additionally, participant observation can be very time consuming. This is made even more difficult if the researcher is conducting the research covertly. It takes time to build up a rapport with the group and can be very stressful to be under that amount of pressure for a significant amount of time. There is also an issue of ethics with the covert participant observation method, where the group being researched in unaware that they are being researched. It raises issues about ethics behind deceiving people to study them or obtain information on them. It is heightened if the researcher must participate in any illegal or immoral activity, even if it is for research purposes. Furthermore, in addition to it being challenging with in-depth interviews to form a general opinion of the data, participant observation makes that a challenge too. The sample sizes with participant observation are quite often small groups, and thus is difficult to generalise. It is also nearly impossible to repeat a participant observation research study, given it is entirely dependent on how the researcher decides to interact with the group. This limitation gives the method a sense of unreliability, as there is no real way to verify its validity with any other group. It has also been argued that participant observation is not a truthful representation of data attained from a sample group. It has been criticised for its lack of objectivity because it can be challenging for a researcher to remain subjective when forming opinions and avoid bias. This also runs in conjunction with what data the researcher thinks is relevant and worth analysing further, giving the researcher full independence to omit any information he believes is not worth noting. The concept called the ‘Hawthorne Effect’ which stipulates that people act differently when they know they are being observed is another drawback to participant observation if it is not being conducted covertly. There is a threat to the validity or authenticity of the study should the researcher draw an influenced conclusion to the study. As a whole, participant observation is an effective research tool if conducted without any influence of bias or false representation of opinion by the sample group, which is ultimately a challenge to ensure. It is favoured by sociologists who want to obtain rich and authentic insight into how a group formulates their opinions. Despite its limitations, it is still an effective method of research and enables social researchers to conduct research on more sensitive topics that would not be appropriate to approach through qualitative interviews.
In-depth interviews and participant observation both hold substantial strengths and weaknesses which heavily depend on the topic being studied. “Qualitative research is not so much the formalised application of methodological routines as it is in the case of measurement-based research… Therefore, we should know more about how intuition in research works, and more generally, how research practices and routines work in qualitative research” (Flick, 2007). As social research methods, the two require advanced interpersonal skills and a great deal of patience in order to successfully conduct the research project. On balance, in-depth interviews are more reliable in terms of ensuring that the participant answers the questions directly, as opposed to the researcher having to spend more time observing to attain their information. Additionally, in-depth interviews allow the interviewer to steer the conversation to their preference, enabling them to draw as much information as possible in shorter amount of time. Participant observation may offer a deeper level of understanding in terms of gaining insight into the groups behaviour, however, the in-depth interview offers that with the additional benefit of being able to directly ask the interviewee as opposed to solely observing the behaviour. The information retrieved from participant observation may have more of the sample groups influence due to the researcher spending a prolonged period of time with the group, solidifying the in-depth interview’s position as a more reliable method of retrieving genuine data. The in-depth interview contains the benefits of participant observation, while also having a minimal number of limitations as a research method. Overall, in-depth interviewing surpasses participant observation as the more effective method by appearing as a reliable method of data collection, while having a lower probability of bias occurring and obtaining as much depth and insight as would be obtained through the participant observation method. It is a genuinely successful method of qualitative research and is rightfully used more often than participant observation to educate ourselves on our society.