UNIT 3

What is qualitative data?

Various methods of collecting qualitative data:

participant observation,
interviewing,
focus groups,
life history and oral history, documents, diaries, photographs, films and videos,
conversation, texts, and case studies

What is qualitative data?

New forms of qualitative data continually emerge in the literature (see Creswell, 2012; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2015; Warren & Xavia Karner, 2015), but all forms might be grouped into four basic
types of information:

● interviews (ranging from one-on-one, in person interactions to group, web-based

interactions),
● observations (ranging from nonparticipant to participant),
● documents (ranging from private to public), and
● audiovisual materials (ranging from photographs to participant-created artifacts).

We organize the list into the four basic types, although some forms may not be easily placed into
one category or the other. In recent years, new forms of data have emerged, such as journaling in
narrative story writing, using e-mail messages, and observing through examining videos and
photographs. Particularly noteworthy have been the emergence of procedures for qualitative
research using visual, sound, and digital methods.

Common formats of computer-mediated data collection for qualitative research include virtual
focus groups and web-based interviews via e-mail or text-based chat rooms, weblogs and life
journals (such as open-ended diaries online), Internet message boards, and social media.

Some ethnographic researchers have conducted advanced qualitative studies online, collecting
data through e-mail, chat room interactions, instant messaging, videoconferencing, and the
images and sound of the websites. Qualitative data collection via web-based platforms has the
advantages of cost and time efficiency in terms of reduced costs for travel and data transcription.
It also provides participants with time and space flexibility that allows them more time to
consider and respond to requests for information. Thus, they can provide a deeper reflection on
the discussed topics and help to create a nonthreatening and comfortable environment, providing
greater ease for participants discussing sensitive issues. More importantly, online data collection
offers an alternative for hard-to-reach groups (due to practical constraints, disability, or language
or communication barriers) who may be marginalized from qualitative research (James &
Busher, 2009).

There are, however, increased ethical concerns with online data collection, such as participants’
privacy protection, new power differentials, ownership of the data, authenticity, and trust in the
data collected. Moreover, web-based research brings new requirements to both participants and
researchers. For instance, participants are required to have some technical skills, access to the
Internet, and necessary reading and writing proficiency.

The particular approach to research often directs a qualitative researcher’s attention toward
preferred approaches to data collection, although these preferred approaches cannot be seen as
rigid guidelines.

For a narrative study, Czarniawska (2004) mentions three ways to collect data for stories:

● recording spontaneous incidents of storytelling,

● eliciting stories through interviews, and
● asking for stories through such mediums as the Internet.

Clandinin and Connelly (2000) suggest collecting field texts through a wide array of sources—
autobiographies, journals, researcher field notes, letters, conversations, interviews, stories of
families, documents, photographs, and personal–family–social artifacts. The conflicting stories
of Ai Mei’s ethnic identity were generated personal observations, interviews, field notes, and
attendance at events.

For a phenomenological study, the process of collecting information involves primarily in depth
interviews with as many as 10 individuals. The important point is to describe the meaning of the
phenomenon for a small number of individuals who have experienced it. Often multiple
interviews are conducted with the each of the research participants. This was the case for
Anderson & Spencer whose phenomenological study examined the “cognitive representations or
images” of AIDS by patients involved 58 interviews conducted over 18 months. Besides
interviewing and self-reflection, Polkinghorne (1989) advocates gathering information from
depictions of the experience outside the context of the research projects, such as descriptions
drawn from novelists, poets, painters, and choreographers. We recommend Lauterbach (1993),
the study of wished-for babies from mothers, as an especially rich example of phenomenological
research using diverse forms of data collection.

Interviews play a central role in the data collection in a grounded theory study. In one study,
each interview with 33 academic chairpersons lasted approximately an hour (Creswell & Brown,
1992). Other data forms besides interviewing, such as participant observation, researcher
reflection or journaling (memoing), participant journaling, and focus groups, may be used to help
develop the theory. These multiple data forms often play a secondary role to interviewing in
grounded theory studies.

In an ethnographic study, the investigator collects descriptions of behavior through observations,

interviews, documents, and artifacts (Atkinson, 2015; Fetterman, 2010; Spradley, 1980),
although observing and interviewing appear to be the most popular forms of ethnographic data
collection. Ethnography has the distinction among the five approaches, we believe, of advocating
the use of quantitative surveys and tests and measures as part of data collection. They reviewed
ethnographic data collection techniques of observation, tests and repeated measures, sample
surveys, interviews, content analysis of secondary or visual data, elicitation methods, audiovisual
information, spatial mapping, and network research.

Like ethnography, case study data collection involves a wide array of procedures as the
researcher builds an in depth picture of the case. We are reminded of the multiple forms of data
collection recommended by Yin (2014) in his book about case studies. He referred to six forms:
documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and physical
artifacts. To represent the extensive data collection involved in a campus gun incident case study,
Asmussen and Creswell (1995) used a matrix of information of the four types of data
(interviews, observations, documents, and audiovisual materials) in the columns and the specific
forms of information (e.g., students at large, central administration) in the rows. The use of a
matrix, which is especially applicable in an information-rich case study, might serve the inquirer
equally well in all approaches of inquiry to convey the depth and multiple forms of data
collection.
Various methods of collecting qualitative data:

Observing

Observation is one of the key tools for collecting data in qualitative research. It is the act of
noting a phenomenon in the field setting through the five senses of the observer, often with a
note-taking instrument, and recording it for scientific purposes (Angrosino, 2007). The
observations are based on the research purpose and questions. Thus, you may start the
observation broadly and then concentrate on research questions. To one degree or another, the
observer is usually involved in that which he or she is observing.

The extent to which the observer is engaged in terms of participating and observing is usually
distinguished into four observation types:

● Complete participant. The researcher is fully engaged with the people he or she is
observing. This may help him or her establish greater rapport with the people being
observed (Angrosino, 2007).
 ● Participant as observer. The researcher is participating in the activity at the site. The
participant role is more salient than the researcher role. This may help the researcher gain
insider views and subjective data. However, it may be distracting for the researcher to
record data when he or she is integrated into the activity (Bogdewic, 1999).
● Nonparticipant or observer as participant. The researcher is an outsider of the group
under study, watching and taking field notes from a distance. He or she can record data
without direct involvement with activity or people (Bernard, 2011).
● Complete observer. The researcher is neither seen nor noticed by the people under study

Participant Observation

Participant observation would seem to offer the opportunity to gather the richly detailed data that
qualitative researchers seek. Ethnography is the more modern term in some disciplines such as
sociology where participant observation is seen as part of a wider complex of methods for
collecting data in the field. The origins of ethnography and participant observation in the more
modern period are usually attributed to the work of the so-called Chicago School of Sociology,
starting in the 1920s.

The key aim of participant observation is to describe and explain the social world from the point
of view of the actors or participants in that world. By being a participant and not just an observer,
access to the point of view of the participant is assured.

According to Bryman (2008), the major characteristics of participant observation are as

follows:

● The researcher is ‘immersed in a social setting’ (p. 163) for a considerable period of time.
The social setting could be, for example, an informal social group, an organisation or a
community.
● The researcher observes the behaviours of members in that social setting.
● The researcher attempts to accurately record activity within that setting.
● The researcher seeks to identify the ‘meanings’ that members of that setting give to the
social environment within which they operate and the behaviour of people within that
setting.
There are a number of important dimensions which identify the different forms of participant
observation (Dereshiwsky, 1999 web pages; also based on Patton, 1986):

● The observer’s role in the setting Some observers are best described as outsiders with
little involvement in the group dynamics whereas others are full members of the group
(see Figure 18.1).
● The group’s knowledge of observation process Overt observation is when the
participants know that they are being observed and by whom. Covert observation is when
the participants in the study do not know that they are being observed and, obviously,
cannot know by whom they are being observed (see Figure 18.1).
● Explication of the study’s purpose This is more than a single dimension and may fall
into at least one of the following categories:
- There is a full explanation given as to the purpose of the research prior to starting
the research.
- Partial explanation means that the participants have some idea of the purpose of
the study but this is less than complete for some reason.
- There is no explanation of the study’s purpose because the observation is covert.
- There is a misleading or false explanation as to the purpose of the study.
● Length The observation may be a single session of a very limited length (for example, a
single session of one hour) or there may be multiple observation sessions of consider able
length which may continue for weeks or years.
● Focus The researcher may focus very narrowly on a single aspect of the situation; there
may be an ‘expanded’ focus on a lengthy but nevertheless predetermined list of variables;
 there may be a holistic or ‘rich data’ approach which involves the observation of a wide
variety of aspects in depth

Criticisms:

● One of its major difficulties as a means of psychological research lies in its frequent
dependency on the observations of a single individual. That is, participant observation
may be accused of subjectivity because it is dependent on uncorroborated observations.
● It would be regarded as more objective if the strength of the agreement between different
participant observers could be established, which is rarely the case.
● Personal Bias
● Skilled observer
● Time consuming
● Hawthorne effect

Interviewing

An interview is considered to be a social interaction based on a conversation. According to

Brinkmann and Kvale (2015), an interview is where “knowledge is constructed in the interaction
between the interviewer and the interviewee”.

The qualitative research interview is further described as “attempts to understand the world from
the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of their experience, to uncover their lived
world”. Who is interviewed and what questions are asked depends on the purpose for the study
and the research questions guiding the study.

Interview questions are often the subquestions in the research study, phrased in a way that
interviewees can understand. These might be seen as the core of the interview protocol, bounded
on the front end by questions to invite the interviewee to open up and talk and located at the end
by questions about “Whom should I talk to in order to learn more?” or comments thanking the
participants for their time for the interview.

A variation for a one-on-one interview is for both the interviewee and interviewer being
physically located in the same room, talking face-to-face using technology, or talking over the
phone. An alternative to talking is to interact in writing using text messaging or an online chat
function.

Focus groups are advantageous when the interaction among interviewees will likely yield the
best information, when interviewees are similar and cooperative with each other, when time to
collect information is limited, and when individuals interviewed one-on-one may be hesitant to
provide information (Krueger & Casey, 2014; Morgan, 1997). Krueger and Casey (2014) discuss
the use of focus groups on the Internet, including chat room focus groups and bulletin board
groups. They discuss how to manage the Internet groups as well as how to develop questions for
the groups. Stewart and Williams (2005) reviewed both synchronous (real-time) and
asynchronous (non–real time) applications of online focus groups for social research. They
highlighted the advantages of new developments such as virtual reality applications because
participants can be questioned over long periods of time, larger numbers can be managed, and
more heated and open exchanges occur. Problems arise with online focus groups, such as
obtaining complete informed consent, recruiting individuals to participate, and choosing times to
convene given different international time zones. It is important to carefully weigh the
drawbacks for some types with the benefits of increased access; for example, some forms lack
visual communication, and most require individuals who are not hesitant to speak and share
ideas or who are technology-savvy (James & Busher, 2009). The less articulate, shy interviewee
may present the researcher with a challenge and less than adequate data. Regardless of interview
mode, care must be taken to create an environment as comfortable as possible and, in group
settings, to encourage all participants to talk and to monitor individuals who may dominate the
conversation.

Types of questions or other interview talk:

Direct questions: ‘Do you find it easy to keep smiling when serving customers?’; ‘Are you
happy with the way you and your husband decide how money should be spent?’ Such questions
are perhaps best left until towards the end of the interview, in order not to influence the direction
of the interview too much.

Indirect questions: ‘What do most people round here think of the ways that management treats
its staff?’, perhaps followed up by ‘Is that the way you feel too?’, in order to get at the
individual’s own view.

Structuring questions: ‘I would now like to move on to a different topic’.

Follow-up questions: getting the interviewee to elaborate his/her answer, such as ‘Could you
say some more about that?’; ‘What do you mean by that . . .?’

Probing questions: following up what has been said through direct questioning.

Specifying questions: ‘What did you do then?’; ‘How did X react to what you said?’

Interpreting questions: ‘Do you mean that your leadership role has had to change from one of
encouraging others to a more directive one?’; ‘Is it fair to say that what you are suggesting is that
you don’t mind being friendly towards customers most of the time, but when they are unpleasant
or demanding you find it more difficult?’

The Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) seven stages of an interview inquiry report a logical sequence
of stages from thematizing the inquiry; to designing the study;

- to interviewing;
 - to transcribing the interview;
- to analyzing the data;
- to verifying the validity,
- to reliability, and
- generalizability of the findings; and
- finally to reporting the study.

The seven steps described by Rubin and Rubin (2012), called the responsive interviewing
model, are similar in scope to Brinkmann and Kvale (2015), but they view the sequence as not
fixed, allowing the researcher to change questions asked, the sites chosen, and the situations to
study. Both approaches to the stages of interviewing sweep across the many phases of research
from deciding on a topic to the actual writing of the study.

The procedures for preparing and conducting interviews are summarized in Figure 7.4 :

● Determine the research questions that will be answered by interviews. These questions
are open-ended, general, and focused on understanding your central phenomenon in the
study.
● Identify interviewees who can best answer these questions based on one of the purposeful
sampling procedures mentioned in the preceding discussion (see Table 7.3 ).
● Distinguish the type of interview by determining what mode is practical and what
interactions will net the most useful information to answer research questions. We
recommend assessing the types available and deciding the best fit for the particular
context.
● Collect data using adequate recording procedures when conducting one-on-one or focus
group interviews. We recommend microphone equipment that is sensitive to the acoustics
of the room from its location, such as the use of lapel microphones or headsets. We also
recommend using more than one recording device placed at different locations in a group
environment.
● Design and use an interview protocol, or interview guide (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015).
Use approximately five to seven open-ended questions and ample space between the
questions to write responses to the interviewee’s comments (see the sample protocol in
Figure 7.5 ).
● Refine the interview questions and the procedures through pilot testing. In an
ethnography of boat pilots aboard cargo vessels, Sampson (2004) used pilot testing to
refine and develop research instruments, assess the degrees of observer bias, frame
questions, collect background information, and adapt research procedures. In case study
research, Yin (2014) recommends a pilot test to refine data collection plans and develop
relevant lines of questions. These pilot cases are selected on the basis of convenience,
access, and geographic proximity.
● Locate a distraction-free place for conducting the interview. Find, if possible, a physical
setting where a private conversation can be held that lends itself to audiotaping.
● Obtain consent from the interviewee to participate in the study by completing a consent
form approved by the human relations review board. At the beginning of the interview,
review the purpose of the study, the amount of time that will be needed to complete the
interview, their right to withdraw from the study, and plans for using the results from the
interview (offer a copy of the report or an abstract of it to the interviewee).
● As an interviewer, follow good interview procedures. Stay within the study boundaries
you have reviewed, use the protocol to guide your questions, complete the interview
within the time specified, be respectful and courteous, and offer few questions and
advice. This last point is an important reminder of how a good interviewer is a good
listener rather than a frequent speaker during an interview.
● Decide transcription logistics ahead of time. For example, what will be transcribed if
needed? If software will be used, then how will it be checked? Decisions here need to be
made about verbal cues and extraneous words and utterances (e.g., “hmms”). Analysis
will be limited if you don’t include certain things
Focus Groups

Focus groups generate data which are patently the product of a group situation and so may, to
some extent, generate different findings from individual interviews. Focus groups originated in
the work of the famous sociologist Robert Merton when he researched the effectiveness of
propaganda using a method he termed focused interviewing (Merton and Kendall, 1946). In
subsequent decades it was taken up by advertising and market researchers until eventually
becoming more accepted in academic research. Focus groups allowed the researcher to
concentrate on matters which market research interviews fail to assess adequately. In recent
years, researchers have increasingly regarded focus groups as a means of generating ideas and
understanding, especially for new research topics, perhaps prior to another more quantitative
approach. In effect, the members of the focus group are given the task of making sense of the
issue. This is achieved through the group dynamics, that is, through the relatively normal
processes of discussion and debate among ordinary people. This is very difficult to achieve
through conventional interviewing techniques involving a single interviewee.
Focus groups may be used in at least three different ways:

● As an early stage of research in order to explore and identify what the significant issues
are.
● To generate broadly conversational data on a topic to be analysed in its own right. This is
a controversial area and lately qualitative researchers have preferred more naturalistic
conversation sources.
● To evaluate the findings of research in the eyes of the people that the research is about.
That is, discussion of research conclusions.

For the researcher, the focus group has other advantages; that is,

● most of the resources come from the participants. The researcher generally ‘facilitates’
the group processes in order to ensure that a pre-planned range of issues is covered but at
the same time allowing unexpected material to enter the discussion. So, ideally, the
researcher does not dominate the proceedings. If necessary, the researcher steers the
discussion along more productive lines if the group seems to be ‘running out of steam’.
The researcher running the focus group is known as the moderator or the facilitator.
● the motivation aroused in the participants simply through being in a group situation. The
participant is not a somewhat alienated individual filling in a rather tedious questionnaire
in isolation. Instead the participant is a member of a group being stimulated by other
members of the group. So the experience is social, interesting and to a degree fun.
● Furthermore, membership of a focus group can be, in itself, empowering. Members of a
focus group are given a voice to, perhaps, communicate to the management of their
organisation via the focus group and the researcher.

In particular, focus groups cannot be used to estimate population characteristics should these be a
focus of the study. Any attempt to use focus group data as indicative of the typical attitudes,
beliefs or opinions of people in general is mistaken. Focus groups do not involve, say, random
sampling from the population so they are not indicative of population characteristics. Focus
groups have a number of disadvantages, which mean that they should not be undertaken without
clear reasons:

● They take a great deal of time and effort to organise, run and transcribe. For example,
bringing a group of strangers together is not always straightforward logistically.
● The focus group takes away power from the researcher to direct the research process and
the sorts of data collected. Consequently, it is difficult to imagine a profitable use of the
focus group as a method of collecting data for the typical laboratory experiment.

In order to organise focus group research effectively, the following need some consideration:

● Allow up to about two hours running time for a focus group. Short running times may
indicate an unsatisfactory methodology.
 ● A single focus group is rarely if ever sufficient even if the group seems very productive
in terms of ideas and discussion. The researcher will need to run several groups in order
to ensure that a good range of viewpoints has been covered. It is difficult to say just how
many groups are needed without some knowledge of the purpose of the research. Indeed,
the researcher may consider running groups until it appears that nothing new is emerging.
In a sense this is subjective, but it is also practical within the ethos of qualitative
methodology.
● The size of a focus group is important. If there are too many participants some will be
inhibited from talking or unable to find the opportunity to participate; too few and the
stimulation of a limited range of viewpoints will risk stultifying the proceedings.
Generally it appears that the ideal is six to ten individuals, though this is not a rule.
● Participants in focus groups are not intended to be representative of anything other than
variety. They should be chosen in order to maximise the productivity of the discussion.
This is, of course, a matter of judgement which will get better with experience in focus
group methodology. However, Gibbs (1997) offers the following practical advice, which
is worthwhile considering:
- Don’t tell focus group members too much in advance of the meeting. If you do
there is a risk that they will figure out their own particular thoughts and attitudes
on the topic of the focus group and, consequently, they may be unresponsive to
the input of others in the group.
- Unless there is a very good reason for doing otherwise, ensure that the focus
group members are strangers to each other prior to the meeting.
- Focus group members should generally be varied (heterogeneous) in terms of
obvious factors. That is, they should vary in educational level, race and ethnicity,
gender and social economic status. However, it should be appreciated that some
of these factors in some circumstances may be inhibitory. For example, a
discussion of race may be affected by having different races present.

The tasks of the focus group moderator include (Gibbs, 1997):

● explaining the purpose and objectives of the focus group session;

● creating a positive experience for the group members and making them feel comfort able
in the situation;
● prompting discussion by posing questions that may open up the debate or by focusing on
an issue;
● enabling participation by all members of the group;
● highlighting differences in perspective between people so that they are encouraged to
engage in the nature of this difference in the discussion;
● stopping conversational drifts from the point of the topic of the focus group.

Among the characteristics required of the focus group moderator are:

 ● the ability not to appear judgemental;
● the ability to keep their personal opinions to themselves.

Sanchita maam’s resource material

A focus group consists of a group of individuals who are asked questions about their opinions
and attitudes toward certain products, services, or concepts. Focus groups are a common
qualitative market research technique used by companies or other entities and are intended to
provide an understanding of consumer perception about certain topics. They are preferred over
interviews, as they elicit group members to interact and influence each other.

A focus group usually consists of 5-12 individuals who all possess certain characteristics
pertaining to the topic of the group. A moderator or interviewer facilitates the discussion and
creates an environment that promotes the communication of different perceptions and points of
view. They usually last for about one to two hours, during which group members are usually
asked five or six questions.

The discussion is then carefully analyzed to provide insights as to how a product, service, or
opportunity might be perceived by the group. The qualitative data is used to develop products,
services, or opportunities that will meet customer requirements.

Types of Focus Groups

1. Two-Way

One group watches another group answer the questions posed by the moderator. By listening to
what the other group thinks and says, the group that listens is able to facilitate more discussion
and potentially draw different conclusions.

2. Dual-Moderator

Two moderators are present – one which ensures the group session progresses smoothly and one
that makes sure that the topics in question are all covered. Dual-moderator focus groups typically
result in a more productive session.

3. Dueling-Moderator

There are two moderators who play devil’s advocate. The purpose of the dueling-moderator
focus group is to facilitate new ideas by introducing new ways of thinking and varying
viewpoints.

4. Respondent-Moderator
One or more of the participants in the group takes the lead as moderator. This is done to change
the dynamics of the group and generate more varied responses.

5. Mini Focus Group

A focus group that consists of fewer participants – usually four or five – which creates a more
intimate group.

6. Online Focus Group

Participants respond and share information through online means. Online focus groups are
created to reach a broader range of participants.

Advantages of a Focus Group

● Focus groups are a cheaper means of obtaining information, as compared to individual

interviews.
● Participants are able to listen to the responses of other participants and “feed off each
other.”
● The groups generally result in more data being gathered, as participants are given the
opportunity to rebut each other.
● Compared to a quantitative survey, these groups are able to gather more information
about perceptions, attitudes, and experiences.

Disadvantages of a Focus Group

● Group dynamics, such as groupthink, may inhibit discussion.

● The group may be difficult to manage and control, due to the number of participants.
● Shy participants or introverts may feel overpowered and intimidated by assertive
participants. This can introduce bias and affect the end result.
● Analysis of data may be time-consuming and challenging.
● The group culture may intimidate or fail to energize participants, resulting in weaker data
collection.

Life History and oral history

Documents
Case study Mrthod

Pdf pg 4-8
Diaries

Photographs

Films and videos

Conversation, Texts and