Qualitative Method of Social Science Research - Essay Example

QUALITATIVE METHOD 2005 INTRODUCTION Any serious research in social sciences requires from the researcher collection of information. Apparently, in order to systematically and purposely collect any information one has to apply certain method which would correlate with the purposes of research. Success or failure of any social research directly depends upon the method chosen. Consequently, in order to choose the most appropriate method of collecting information the researcher must be aware of the peculiarities, advantages and disadvantages of each method applicable to the realm he/she works in. Broadly, there are two approaches in collection of information for research purposes in social sciences: qualitative research and quantitative research. Quantitative research originated in the natural sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology, geology and others, and focused on investigating things the researcher could observe and measure in some way. Evidently, applicability of this approach to social science research was rather limited: social world is impossible to objectively measure in the same way as natural world. Researchers working in the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and others were interested in studying behaviour of human beings and various aspects of the social world inhabited by people. Attempts to explain human behaviour in simply measurable terms had only partial success: although measurements obtained with the help of quantitative research told researchers how often human beings demonstrate some or other type of behaviour or how often certain social phenomenon occur, no quantitative research could determine why people demonstrate such behaviour or why things in social world occurred in some specific way. Qualitative research is an effective alternative to find the answer to this question. MAIN DISCUSSION Qualitative research is defined as "multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter" (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994: 2). Qualitative research is based upon a solid philosophical basis which includes a number of paradigms. Theorists outline four major philosophical paradigms that formed the basis of qualitative approach in social sciences: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Positivist philosophy founded by a famous French theorist A. Konte played exceptionally important role in development of qualitative research. Positivists argued that the objective reality did not depend upon the perspectives of taken by researchers. Consequently, there is no difference between reality and perception of reality, and the primary task of researchers is to disclose facts of the objective world. This paradigm is present in a diluted form in some qualitative research. Postpositivist philosophy is a contemporary modification of Konte's positivism. Adherents of this paradigm claim that human being is not capable of perfect and comprehensive understanding of reality admitting that serious analysis and accurate collection of information can bring the researcher close to such understanding. Postpositivism exerts substantial influence on qualitative research (Shaw, 1999: 45-47). Critical paradigm emerged in the second half of the last century in Germany. Proponents of this paradigm argued that reality could not be grasped without researcher's bias that is caused by historical, political, societal, ethnic, or gender conditions. Consequently, realisation of social conditions and values should be the primary purpose of research (Harvey, 1990). Critical ethnography, feminist research and participatory action research are the best known methods within qualitative approach which rely upon the critical paradigm. And finally representatives of constructivist paradigm claimed that reality was not possible to study and understand 'in pieces', but only holistically and in context. Therefore, the traditional relationship between researcher and subject of research was labelled wrong: "Knower and known not only could not remain distanced and separated in the process of evaluation, but probably should not" (Lincoln, 1990: 68). Since any statement and behaviour is bound to certain specific context, constructivists reasonably questioned the very possibility of broad generalisations based upon the results of any research. THE ESSENCE OF QUALITATIVE APPROACH Any variation of qualitative research aims to develop explanations of phenomena that occur in social world thus improving our understanding of the environment we live in. While quantitative methods answer questions like 'how many times some phenomenon has occurred', 'how often people behave in some or other way', etc, qualitative research is concerned with answering questions 'why does some or other phenomenon occur', 'in what way does it occur', etc. Consequently, qualitative research has the following characteristic features: Qualitative research aims to disclose subjective data produced by individuals (for example, experiences, opinions, views, feelings, etc.) Qualitative research deals with social phenomena occurring in natural not artificial environment Qualitative research depends upon the researcher's ability to correctly identify a set of variables in order to gain holistic perspective on the phenomenon under study Qualitative research is inductive in nature: it aims to develop theories and concepts to improve the researcher's understanding of the social reality. Quantitative research is, by contrast, deductive: quantitative data helps to test existing concepts and theories Qualitative research is time consuming: data are collected through direct contacts with human beings, either with the help of observation or interview. Consequently, samples in quantitative research are bigger, while qualitative research implies small samples Qualitative research implies sampling techniques different from those used in quantitative research: information is collected from a specific group/subgroup, while random sampling is rejected Qualitative research validity and reliability criteria differ from those used for the same purposes in quantitative research (Hancock, 1998: 3-4) Each of the above characteristics of qualitative research may be considered a weakness or strength: everything depends upon the purpose of research. Apparently, for a social science research majority of these features are advantageous, although the results of a qualitative study are often difficult to generalise to a population larger than the sample used during the research. TYPES OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative research may be performed using one of the five major types. These are: 1. Ethnography 2. Phenomenology 3. Grounded theory 4. Case study 5. Survey While survey and case study is effectively applied in quantitative research as well as in qualitative one, the first three types characterize only qualitative research. ETHNOGRAPHY The term 'ethnography' means 'portraying people'. This type of qualitative research is rooted in anthropology and history, and is excessively used for descriptive studies of nations and cultures. Ethnographic studies are time-consuming; they require intensive fieldwork from the researcher, while the most popular methods of data collection include participant observation and various type of interview (informal, formal, repeated, etc.) (Lincoln, 1990). Analysis of data in ethnographic studies is performed in the so-called 'emic' manner: the researcher interprets the collected data adopting the perspective of the sample being studied. Consequently, ethnographic studies results reflect the perspective of the subjects under study. For example, an Australian researcher may study some social phenomenon, such as female circumcision, in Africa. In the western perspective this phenomenon is viewed as a severe form of abuse implying a number of negative health and mental consequences. However, from the point of view of the society that practices this ritual female circumcision is an important cultural and religious tradition that is performed for hygienic and social reasons. In this case emic approach helps the researcher to avoid the trap of misinterpreting data from an outsider perspective. PHENOMENOLOGY The literal meaning of this term means the study of phenomena. In the literature phenomenology is used to describe a specific type of qualitative research and qualitative research in general. Our world is full of various phenomena that people may see but lack full understanding of. Phenomenology is a method of describing some part of the social world: situation, experience, concept, event, etc. For example, we know that many people whom surround us suffer from some or other form of mental illness. However, only few of us fully understand what 'mental illness' actually means as well as few people know what it feels like to suffer from mental illness. While correlation studies may reveal the types of mentally ill people or define the effectiveness of various treatments, only phenomenological approach can help the researcher understand the effects of mental illness of the person's life and relationship with other people. Consequently, any phenomenological study begins with the acknowledgement that our understanding of some or other social phenomenon is not full, and improving understanding of this phenomenon will benefit the society. While phenomenological study can hardly provide an accurate definition to the phenomenon under study, it definitely improves the researcher's understanding of the phenomenon (Hancock, 1998). GROUNDED THEORY The main characteristic of this approach is the development of new concept/theory on the basis of collecting and analysing data about some social phenomenon. Grounded theory approach differs from phenomenology: knowledge that emerges as a result of grounded theory research is genuinely new and can be employed to design new theories about the phenomenon under study. New theories help the researcher to look at the phenomenon in a new way. Grounded theory employs a number of data collection methods: literature review, various types of interviews, participant observation, documentary analysis, etc. The most peculiar and important characteristic of grounded theory is "the simultaneous collection and analysis of data using a process known as constant comparative analysis" (Hancock, 1998). This means that data obtained are transcribed and examined for immediately following data collection. Assumptions that emerged during analysis of the date are included in data collection when the researcher undertakes next field research. Therefore, the initial study schedule may be amended dramatically as the research progresses. New theory emerges as soon as the researcher recognises new concepts/ideas obtained during analysis of data. Then the researcher reviews the new concepts/ideas, and develops and tests hypotheses that lead him to new understanding of the problem under study. This approach is called 'grounded theory' precisely for this reason: the theory/concept developed using grounded theory is really grounded in the data. CASE STUDY Although case study is one of those techniques that can be effectively used in qualitative and quantitative research, the qualitative approach to case study implies much deeper analysis than the quantitative approach. Basically, case study technique is employed to describe an entity that forms a single unit such as a person, an organisation or an institution, though the complexity of case studies varies greatly. An illustrative description of a social situation, event or occurrence is the simplest form of case study. Analysis of a social situation, even or occurrence over a certain period of time is more complex form of case study, while analysis of several events or situations involving the same participants is the most complex one. Case study is believed to provide the researcher with deep and comprehensive data that is normally can not be obtained using other techniques. The most peculiar characteristic of case study is capturing a wide variety of variables to define how a set of particular circumstances produce some or other result. Case study employs practically all methods of collecting information available: various types of interviews, participant observation, testing, etc (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Often, case study is unreasonably criticised under the pretext of its results being hardly generalisable. However, the purpose of case study in qualitative research is not to make generalisations but to describe a specific social situation or event in details. The lack of generalisability does not prevent the researcher from studying a specific social issue, though those whom wonder whether results of some particular case study are applicable to other environment or not may be interested in generalisability of the study's results. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES Qualitative research employs three major methods of data collection: interviews, participatory observation, and documentary analysis (Burgess, 1991a). Interview is considered to be the most utilized method. Normally, three types of interviews are mentioned in the literature: structured interviews, unstructured interviews, and semi-structured interviews. While structured interviews (or standardised interviews) are often employed in quantitative research, unstructured interviews (or informal conversational interviews) play exceptionally important role in qualitative studies (Burgess, 1991b). Semi-structured interviews (or guided interviews) are in the middle between structured and unstructured interviews in terms of form: the researcher prepares an interview guide consisting of a set of questions. The guide is amended during the process of interviewing as the researcher generates questions to develop interesting areas of inquiry. This type of interview is also useful in qualitative research (Flick, 1998: 76). Participant observation has been described as "the most intimate and morally hazardous" form of data collection in qualitative research. Patton has demonstrated several variations in participant observation: The extent of the researcher's participation can vary from full participation to onlooker observation. For example, researchers can enter the homes of people with disabilities as care workers or users (full participation), or as onlookers or spectators (least participation). There is a continuum between overt and covert observations. In overt observations, people know they are being observed whereas in covert observations, they do not. One reason why covert observations are conducted is that people might behave differently when they know they are being observed. There is much ethical discussion about covert observations (for example, Bulmer, 1982), in particular about the difficulties in deciding the extent to which the observations should be overt or covert. For example, in day centres for people with mental disabilities, should all the users be informed of the observations, even though some might fear for them unduly or others may attend the centres for a limited time (Oka and Shaw, 2000) Despite these difficulties, participant observation remains an important tool for conducting qualitative research: this method helps the researcher reveal information that neither interview nor other methods can reveal. And finally, documentary analysis helps to deal with abundant documentation associated with a specific research setting. According to Burgess (1991a), there are three sorts of distinctions among documents. One is made between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources have a direct relationship with those who are studied: letters, reports, and diaries. Although these documents describe first-hand accounts of situations, the researcher must be critical in his attitude toward them: "it is essential to locate them in context where they were produced" (Burgess, 1991a: 124). On the other hand, secondary sources are transcribed or edited versions of primary sources, and the researcher must keep in mind that they may include serious errors. Another distinction is made between public and private documents. For example, in a residential home for children, the public documents would include newsletters and books published by the organisation running the home about their history. Private documents would include the children's diaries, and letters written by children to their parents and vice versa. Among public documents, for social work researchers, official documents records may be important. They include case files and staff diaries that social workers share as information resources for treatment (Oka and Shaw, 2000). RECENT USE EXAMPLE A bright example of qualitative research is provided by Margaret McNeil and Kerry Pedigo (2001). The article deals with the ethical challenges facing managers in Western Australia. While resolving ethical dilemmas is not easy domestically, ethical problems that managers face in international business are ways more complex. Cross cultural investigation of ethical perception and decision-making should be paid particular attention because globalization of the world economies is an indisputable fact these days, and expanding operations internationally has already turned into the top priority for absolute majority of companies across the world. Using qualitative methods of research, the authors attempt to identify and list ethical dilemmas Australian managers used to face internationally. A number of Western Australian managers was asked to identify the most significant ethical issues or incidents that occurred in their international dealings over the period of last three years. After analysis of the answers the authors divide research results into three separate categories: ethical problems (9 total), actions taken (3 total), and feeling experienced (7 total). Thus, the study has demonstrated a number of ethical problems encountered by Western Australian managers significantly exceeds three or four typical difficulties listed in the most popular works on cross-cultural variations of ethical perception. Besides, the study has demonstrated a degree of congruence between managers' experiences and established relationship between the ethical decision-making, nature of the problems encountered, and feelings experienced by the managers. The article is a perfect example for inexperienced authors of how qualitative research should be conducted both theoretically and practically. At the first glance, this work bears much resemblance to the article by Sarwono and Armstrong, especially in terms of research organization and rather limited implications (Indonesian or Australian organizations). However, while Sarwono and Armstrong analyze micro-cultural differences of ethical perception within Indonesian context, McNeil and Pedigo investigate macro-cultural peculiarities, arguably the least researched area of business ethics. The first thing that deserves mentioning about the paper is the authors' choice of research methodology. Instead of using more simple and popular quantitative method of research, they preferred more complex qualitative method. Although qualitative interpretation of results took more time, the authors were rewarded by more comprehensive information: instead of dry statistical data they obtained eloquent and direct stories which provided them with far more revealing and direct data. Precisely due to their choice of methodology McNeil and Pedigo achieved so textured and multi-dimensional results. Practical value of the study is obvious: the authors identify major problems encountered by Western Australian managers in international operations. In future, this study may be used as starting point for development of a model that will predict behavior of Western Australian managers in situations involving ethical choices or decision-making. Although this research is linked to Western Australian context, it can be used as a template for similar researches in the United States, Canada, and European countries. Availability of similar studies will mean a huge step forward for our understanding of cross-cultural differences in ethical perception: it will be possible to contrast and compare ethical problems most often encountered by managers from different cultural environments, feeling experienced in ethically questionable situations, and decision-making behavior. Save its potential practical implications, this study also contributes much to theoretical knowledge. Although limited research is now available on the problem of cross-cultural variations in ethical perception, existing works adopt the so-called 'rational paradigm' characteristic to Western science. The rational paradigm applicable to human sciences, such as psychology or sociology, means that human behavior is viewed as rational in its essence, i.e. human choice of behavioral patterns to be used under some or other circumstances depends exceptionally upon whether an individual perceives it as rational or not. The rational paradigm in studies dealing with business ethics in general and ethical dilemmas in particular is apparent: emphasis is always placed on the rights and responsibilities of parties with no regard to their feelings. McNeil and Pedigo seriously undermine this paradigm thus putting in question validity of the previous research. Respondents that took part in their study usually experienced strong feelings in ethically questionable situations, and sometimes these feelings affected decision they made. Moreover, since the previous research did not take into consideration feelings experienced by managers, organizational codes of ethical behavior fail to view managers as human being treating them rather as computerlike devices. As a result, of the seven feelings mentioned in the study, "appalled", "angry", "frustrated" and "helpless" were strongest and most frequently met. Based upon such results, the authors argue about the need for new, rational-emotional approach to studies of ethical perception both domestically and internationally. This new approach will not only improve our understanding of the decision-making behavior, but may also reduce emotional stress always experienced by managers in ethically questionable situations, and thus improve their performance. Perhaps the only thing that can be addressed as drawback of this study is size of the sample - the study is based upon analysis of only 61 questionnaires. Although the authors consider such sample quite enough for purposes of the research (and cite a reliable source in support of their opinion), the study would be more reliable if at least 150 respondents took part in the survey. The key problem is that while analysis of 61 questionnaires provided enough data to outline 9 problems, 3 variants of behavior, and 7 feelings experienced by mangers in ethically questionable situations, a sample of 130-150 might produce several more problems, variants of behavior, and feelings. Yet, for the sake of objectiveness it is necessary to admit that the results might remain the same. Despite this potential drawback I absolutely agree with conclusions drawn by the authors of the research. REFERENCES Burgess, R. G. (1991a). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Routledge. (First published 1984 by Unwin Hyman). Burgess, R. G. (1991b). The Unstructured Interview as a Conversation. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Field Research: a Sourcebook and Field Manual (pp. 107-110). London: Routledge (First published 1982 by Unwin Hyman). Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hancock, B. (1998) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Trent Focus Harvey, L. (1990). Critical Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman. Lincoln, Y. (1990). The Making of a constructivist: a remembrance of transformations past. In E. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage. McNeil, Margaret, and Kerry Pedigo (Apr 2001), "Western Australian managers tell their stories", Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 30, Issue 4, Part 2; pp.305-318 Oka, T., and Shaw, I. (2000) Qualitative Research in Social Work, available online retrieved June 1, 2005 from http://pweb.sophia.ac.jp/t-oka/qrsw.html Shaw, I. (1999). Qualitative Evaluation. London: Sage Read More