Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 1

Comparing Qualitative Research Designs

Seda Khadimally

University of Phoenix
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 2

Comparing Qualitative Research Designs

The rigor of a well-designed qualitative research study heavily relies on the extent to

which those conducting the study are informed about the theory and practice of it. The more

knowledgeable the researchers are about different research design methods, the more salient their

research findings will be. As much important as it is to know the philosophical underpinnings or

the researchers’ positioning themselves prior to a qualitative research design, it is especially

critical to have a profound understanding of the major concepts vested in it. Such understanding

includes—but is not limited to—when it is appropriate to employ qualitative research, types of

this research method (i.e., phenomenology, grounded theory research, case study, ethnography,

Delphi method, etc.), and other such necessary information rooted in how to effectively and

efficiently design a qualitative study germane in the literature-specific. With the intent to shed

light to these and a number of more topics pertinent to the conduct of qualitative research design,

this paper will discuss the content of three particular research designs and their approaches to the

type of question the design would answer, type of problem it would address, sample size and

selection, type of data collected, how these data are analyzed, and how the results of these

analyzed data are presented. Examining the insights of each design with a comparative look, the

paper will elaborate on details pivotal for the reader to understand, compare, and contrast, in

hopes that they can ultimately design a salient qualitative research study.

Grounded Theory

Evolution of the Grounded Theory Research with Various Approaches

The Grounded Theory (GT) is one type of qualitative research design that has evolved

over time with different approaches brought up by Glaser (1967), Strauss and Corbin (2008), and

Charmaz (2006). As one delves more deeply into the nature of GT, he/she can clearly detect its
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 3

differences from other qualitative designs. There is an array of looks as to how GT researchers

end up building this theory from scratch, especially when there is a considerable lack of such

theory within the literature-specific. These various approaches start from the purest form of the

GT research to a more instructive and structured version, and to finally an interpretive and

contemporary form.

GT was first presented by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in their book, The Discovery

of Grounded Theory. Glaser’s endorsement on the creation of GT seems to lack methodology at

the beginning of the research. Instead, his pure form of the GT research relies on the prevalence

of data—not theoretical perspectives or philosophical assumptions—that generate the theory.

Some regard Glaser’s version of GT as a free flow (Bound, 2011). His version of the GT

research is amended later by Strauss and Corbin (2008), who present the GT model with a rather

prescriptive, instructive, and therefore, more structured methodology (as cited in Bound, 2011).

According to Strauss and Corbin (2008), people pursue how to do things in a prescriptive manner

in the process of developing categories. The constructionist Charmaz (2006), on the other hand,

proposes a yet more contemporary approach to the philosophy of the GT research. With a more

interpretive look to developing a theory in qualitative research studies, Charmaz (2006) stressed

that the researcher constructs categories, concepts, and theories (as cited in Bound, 2011).

Differences and Unique Nature of GT Compared to Other Qualitative Research Designs

GT is employed by researchers when no other theory in the relevant research literature is

able to explain a certain phenomenon, or when there is a lack of current descriptions regarding a

process or knowledge (Boone, 2014), rather than contributing to the one existing in the literature.

What lies in the GT philosophy is that it goes “beyond description towards explanation” (Boone,

2014) of why a specific phenomenon happens. The research questions in the GT research are
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 4

usually as follows: “What theoretical model explains ….? or “What are the experiences of ....?

Glaser and Strauss (1967) stressed that researchers use raw data in order to generate a theory.

Coding and analysis system to build the theory is realized with a complex system.

What differentiates GT from other forms of qualitative research, according to Strauss and

Corbin (2008), is the amount of data, which are extensive. These data are to be crossed checked,

along with various documents, all of which can help researchers understand the meanings behind

phenomena. Without these documents and extensive amount of data, the meanings of events

sought would not be noticed in the process of developing a brand new theory.

Research questions in the GT research often ask the features of an event or phenomenon,

and simply seek to elicit an answer. To illustrate, the researcher might inquire in his/her study,

“what are the effective characteristics of online learning and teaching in second language

environments?” With this question, the researcher will be able to saliently answer the question

and thus develop a new theory, by creating a process that is systematic, rather than constructive.

Researchers conducting a GT do not search for some theoretical explanations—which often

occurs by completely different phrasing within the question. This leaves the GT researchers with

a rather structured and prescriptive methodology in the process of developing their theory. In this

context, the role the theoretical framework plays within the GT research is noteworthy in that in

GT, a priori theories do not help researchers come up with good, solid research questions, for

these questions will be both theoretical and constructivist in nature.

Another important point to discuss regarding the uniqueness of the GT research

compared to other qualitative research designs is the dependence of theory on data. From an

analytical standpoint, the way data are handled is different than it is in other forms of qualitative

research. According to Gibbs (2010), it is especially essential to keep in mind that unlike other
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 5

forms of qualitative research where researchers collect all the data available, and following this

data collection stage, analyze the data is a completely separate step. Grounded theory, “and the

resulting development of a theory through the process, necessitates the simultaneous collection

and analysis process” (Gibbs, 2010, as cited in Bound, 2011, p. 4).

In addition, other forms of qualitative research use a concept of collecting data in order to

verify a pre-existing theory. In phenomenological research, for instance, researchers present a

theory based on their “understanding of an event, and through conducting interviews, [they] use

the data to support the presented theory. [In the GT approach, however,] data conform to support

a theory” (Bound, 2011, pp. 3-4).

As researchers collect their data, and analyze them at the same time, they can tweak

and/or develop a theory—as the data dictate. Besides, different from other qualitative designs,

there is possibly a lack of methodology at the onset of the GT research design process. This

could be tied up to Glaser’s description of a pure form of the GT research, which, according to

Glaser (1967), relies on the prevalence of data—not theoretical perspectives or philosophical

assumptions—that generate the theory.

Researchers conducting a GT research should be prepared to develop a theory, by means

of collecting data primarily through interviews, along with systematic data collection and

analysis procedures, which should be based on open, selective, and axial coding (Creswell,

2013). When the data are analyzed, and the theory is generated, a report is written, and then the

theory is illustrated in a figure (Creswell, 2013).

One particular characteristic that distinguishes GT from other forms of qualitative study

designs could be that GT research can emerge as rather scientific. Nevertheless, due to sensitive

issues researchers are undertaking, GT could still address emotional issues or highly sensitive
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 6

problems in the pertinent social context. Because GT researchers conduct their studies through

generating data categories, and then relating these categories within a certain theoretical

framework or model, combined with defining the conditions and context within which the theory

is to operate, this type of research design is utterly rigorous, and often has scientific credibility

(Creswell, 2013).

Phenomenological Study

A phenomenological research study asks a strong, central question around a particular

phenomenon, wherein intensity and emotional experience of the individuals should be conveyed

to the reader (Patton, 2002). The central phenomenological question should be very strong and

effective on the reader. Because phenomenology focuses on individuals’ meaning making as the

core element of their experience (Patton, 2002), typically, the research questions should consist

of such statements as what and how. In other words, phenomenological researchers seek to

understand what those individuals experienced and how they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994, as

cited in Creswell, 2013). Similar to case studies—or as with all other forms of qualitative

research design—phenomenology aims at creating a deep understanding and meanings from the

analyzed data.

With an array of categories and investigation areas such as hermeneutical, empirical

transcendental, focus on a phenomenon of interest, and data collected from individuals, what this

research design seeks is an understanding of the essence of the experiences with the questions

they ask. Creswell (2013) stated that “a phenomenology provides a deep understanding of a

phenomenon as experienced by several individuals” (p. 82). Regarding the essence of lived

experiences, Creswell (2013) also pointed out that “the researcher takes data and, through several

steps of reducing the data, ultimately develops a description of the experiences about the
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 7

phenomenon that all individuals have in common”—the essence of those experiences (p. 122).

To emphasize one more time, type of the problem that is best suited for research design in

phenomenology is the researcher’s need to describe the essence of a phenomenon lived and

experienced by participants. As such, research questions a phenomenologist would ask are driven

by his/her need to derive information from these individuals’ experiences, which provides

information about the process instead of the outcome (Boone, 2014).

Case Study

A case study is selected to study a particular case with boundaries, which are clear. With

its four major characteristic (i.e., particularistic, descriptive, heuristic, and inductive), a case

study’s primary focus is on specific situations, events, or programs (Boone, 2014). This form of

research design does not necessarily encompass a single case. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011)

pointed out that in case studies, cases might be considered as more than one individual, group, or

multiple cases which might additionally include, “events, programs, institutions, or a society”

(p. 256). These cases could be other non-living entities under investigation. Cases in a case

study, according to Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011), are influenced by cross disciplines and used

in various fields such as “Medicine, Law, Social work, etc.” (p. 255).

Researchers conducting a case study often explore a problem or issue, from which a

detailed understanding arises, by investigating one particular case or several cases. In other

words, case studies focus on developing an in-depth description and analysis of a particular case

or multiple cases. In order to examine these cases, researchers need to have contextual materials

available, so they can describe the setting(s) for the case(s). They should additionally have a

plethora of information about those cases in order to depict an in-depth, detailed picture to the
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 8

reader, by addressing and reporting several issues or by only concentrating on a single problem

(Stake, 1995, as cited in Creswell, 2013).

Case study research design is regarded as an iterative process although it is linear in

nature, which allows researchers to hold a holistic approach in their inquiry of complex real-life

phenomena within a certain context (Baxter and Jack, 2008). It is important to note that, in a case

study, one can observe the techniques and strategies employed in both qualitative and

quantitative methods. For example, “statistical data, such as a census, are often used in case

study research” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 256).

Researchers who conduct case studies can employ multiple methods of data collection

with the purpose of collecting extensive amount of data about a particular case they are

investigating. Then, the pertinent research questions help determine their methods. According to

Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011), these methods often embody ethnography, oral history, analyses

of documents, interviews, and others. Therefore, researchers can conduct a case study, by use of

not only qualitative, but also quantitative methods. As such, data might emerge as either

authentic, original, or they could result in as some pre-existing data previously situated in the

particular context.

Content Analysis in Case Studies

What is Content Analysis?

Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) explained that content analysis is an unobtrusive method

of analyzing data through unconventional means such as “texts or artifacts as the starting point of

the research process” (p. 228). Qualitative research design methods often depend on interviews,

observations, or questionnaires, etc., in order to study the social reality or the social world under
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 9

inquiry through interaction with individuals participating in the study. However, content analysis

allows researchers to use non-living data forms (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011), which are

non-interactive and independent from the research conducted. Because data already exist in the

social reality, the researchers cannot affect these naturalistic and authentic data out there with

their traditional data collection and analysis techniques (i.e., interviews, observations, personal

communication, etc.). For this reason, according to Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011), the research

process during content analysis is one regarded as unobtrusive.

When is it Appropriate to Do Content Analysis in Qualitative Research?

According to Berg (2009), the appropriateness of content analysis arises from

researchers’ need to code and interpret data. Such analysis “can be used to study mass-mediated

representations of historical or current events” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 228). For

example, a researcher interested in how a new, tweet language has been created and imposed on

today’s youth and the society in general may refer to content analysis systematically, by use of

several modes of media. In another example, a researcher interested in how real housewives

shows represent a fabricated, artificial class in the society or how these shows cause a divide

between social classes—between the ultra wealthy and those of low SES—might systematically

analyze the representations of this new fad or the new culture created by the media. On a final

note, it is appropriate to do content analysis across various disciplines such as Journalism,

“Communications, Criminal Justice/Criminology, Education, and Sociology” (Hesse-Biber &

Leavy, 2011, p. 228).

Advantages of Content Analysis

One advantage of content analysis in qualitative studies is that it is a research strategy

that is unobtrusive. According to Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011), researchers do not intrude into
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 10

participants’ social lives, either by observing or interviewing, but they rather investigate current

non-interactive texts, and, therefore, the research process is referred to as unobtrusive. Simply

put, when no one wants to participate in an interview, respond to questionnaires, or enter a

laboratory, it would be very useful to analyze data through public addresses, archival records,

newspaper accounts, and other such non-living, accessible materials. Researchers engaged in

content analysis refer to social communication artifacts such as transcriptions of recorded

communications, written documents, videotapes, photographs, etc. Content analysis is defined as

a research technique with which to make “inferences by systematically and objectively

identifying special characteristics of messages” (Holsti, 1968, p. 608). Any item than can be

turned into text can be easily used in content analysis.

Another advantage of content analysis is that is cost-effective. It does not require

tremendous amount of time or finances to perform this type of analysis. Materials necessary to

do content analysis are easily accessible and not costly to any researcher willing to access them.

The third advantage of content analysis is that researchers can study processes that occur

over long periods of time, or those that may reflect certain fads or trends (Babbie, 1998) in a

given society. By using content analysis, researchers can examine data during individual years of

a particular trend, phenomenon, or over the span of all years under investigation.

A Closer Look to Phenomenology and Case Studies: A Comparative Approach

As mentioned previously, the central characteristic of phenomenological studies is lived

experiences of individuals in contrast to case studies which provide an in-depth understanding of

one case or cases in particular. The disciplines phenomenology draws from are often the

humanities including Anthropology, Literature, History, Psychology, and Sociology. Case

studies, however, rather take from Psychology, Law, Political Science, and Medicine. The
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 11

analysis unit of phenomenology is based on one or more individuals under study, while what

case studies analyze are usually an event, a program, an activity, or more than one individual.

Forms of data collection phenomenology uses are predominantly interviews and

documents. Case studies, on the other hand, refer to multiple sources, which are interviews,

observations, documents, and artifacts. Phenomenologists analyze data through stories—or by

retelling stories. Their data analysis is based on developing themes, using chronology, and

others. Case studies analyze data by describing cases and themes—or cross-case themes—of

particular cases.

The general structure of a phenomenological study includes an introduction with a stated

problem and research questions (i.e., what and how), as well as research procedures, which

embody phenomenology and philosophical assumptions, data collection, analysis, and outcomes.

The general structure of phenomenology also follows with statements, meanings of these

statements, themes of meanings, description of phenomena (Adapted from Moustakas, 1994).

According to Yin (1989), research questions phenomenological studies inquire are What is

this? or What is happening here? when compared to case studies that use questions such as how

and why. In addition, case studies include an entry vignette with an introduction (i.e., problem,

questions, case study, data collection, analysis, outcomes), a description of the case(s) and their

context, a development of issues; details about issues by the researcher, his/her assertions, and

finally a closing vignette (Adapted from Stake, 1995).

During the design of a case study, researchers need to ensure that all the data they

collected are relevant. After all, a set of rigid rules is not observed in case studies. For this

reason, throughout the research design, the role of the researchers conducting a case study is to

be focused and succinct—if they do not want to end up with irrelevant information. Because the
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 12

researchers conducting case studies are regarded as an observant rather than those experimenting

the case, they can be passive in their study, treating each case individually.

Data analysis in case studies is often based on researchers’ opinions, instead of statistical

information conveyed to the reader. Case study researchers need to collect manageable data

around which they can construct a narrative that should embody interesting—yet, again, brief—

examples. Researchers also focus on judging trends in case studies, instead of predominantly

demonstrating numerical data although numbers can be shown, as well. Keeping in mind that

their main focus is not to analyze each datum in their study, case study researchers keep data

analysis concise, and write their judgments accordingly with no right or wrong answers.

Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) regard case study as a holistic approach to research design

process; a research strategy—rather than a method or methodology—which “provides the

researcher with a holistic understanding of a problem, issue, or phenomenon within its social

context (p. 256). In conclusion, both phenomenological study and case study help researchers

with an in-depth understanding of a current, issue, problem, or a phenomenon within a specific

social context.
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 13

References

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report. 13(4). Available at

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf

Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Long Beach,

CA: Pearson.

Boone, S. (2014). UOPX, RES/724. (2012). Qualitative research designs lecture notes.

University of Phoenix.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gibbs, G. (2010). Core elements part 1. Grounded theory. United Kingdom: University of

Huddersfield.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Running head: COMPARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS 14

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

UOPX, RES/711. (2011). Qualitative research designs lecture notes.

UOPX, RES/722A. (2012). Week three notes on problem statements in qualitative and

quantitative studies.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA;

Sage Publications

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/36848_birks.pdf

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13421_Chapter4.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/1526814/Qualitative_Research_Grounded_Theory_Methodology

https://explorable.com/case-study-research-design

http://depts.washington.edu/uwmcnair/chapter11.content.analysis.pdf

(Information retrieved from pp. 258-259)