Qualitative research uses an inquiry process to understand a particular phenomenon in the context of its meaning for the participants. Creswell (1994) defines qualitative study as a “process of inquiry used to gain insight into a social or human problem, based on a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting” (p. 2).
Qualitative research requires the researcher to become familiar with their participants’ interpretation of reality. Observing, recording and analysing the phenomena from the perspective of the individual participant. Holstein (2000) states that qualitative inquiry makes the assumption that reality is socially constructed by every unique individual and that as a result that individual develops their own contextual interpretation in life which is unique to them.
The use of qualitative research within health research has become more frequent in recent years (Mays & Pope, 2000., Lloyd Jones 2004., McEwan et al. 2004) Methods developed for synthesizing qualitative study findings have been grounded in the domains of education and health research which has gained momentum in recent years; as such
Page | 86
expanding the recognition of synthesis as a method for combining knowledge and developing theory from individual studies (Britten et al. 2002). Consequently these developments within health care research have borne witness to the growth of systematic review as an instrument for synthesizing evidence on the effectiveness of health care interventions. Ultimately these developments have led to a renewed vigour in the use of synthesis in the interpretive paradigm (Mays et al., 2005).
Primarily concerned with how individuals interpret and understand their social worlds, qualitative research can put forward explanations for unexpected and anomalous findings which may emerge from quantitative research (Dixon-wood et al., 2004; Green and Thorogood, 2004). The qualitative approach values the views of respondents and seeks to understand the environment in which they live (Parahoo, 2006), but greater than this the approach can help to produce a more comprehensive and generalisable theory or provide an insight into why interventional processes succeed or fail (Harden et al., 2004).
Several approaches to the synthesis of qualitative data have been put forward, with some based upon the analysis methods which are used in primary research representing either an integrative or interpretive method of synthesis (Dixon-woods et al., 2004; Mays et al., 2005). One such interpretive approach is meta-ethnography which was developed by Noblit and Hare (1988) in order to combine ethnographic research findings in the field of education.
This method of synthesis has been particularly evident in health care exploring experiences of illness and care (Britten et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2003; Pound et al., 2005) having the ability to generate a much higher level of synthesis, generate new research questions and reduce the duplication of research. Dixon-woods et al. (2004) argue that its strength lies in its attempts to safeguard the interpretive properties of primary data.
Page | 87
Qualitative research is constructed of complex, context dependent variables and Treise (1999) compares several qualitative characteristics and assumptions with a non- qualitative approach. As a result ontology and epistemology distinctions between qualitative and non- qualitative fields can be made. Qualitative research can be used by a multitude of disciplines in numerous ways, to study any given subject.
Table 4.3: Qualitative and Non-Qualitative Approach Comparisons
Qualitative Approach Non-Quantitative Approach
1. Assumes multiple and dynamic realities, contextual
1. Assumes single, stable reality, divisible, fragmented
2. Seeks understanding
2. Looks for external factors, causes and explanation, systematic association of variables; prediction 3. Uses a natural setting, observation is
uncontrolled
3. Uses controller experimentation and observation
4. Data precedes theory 4. Theory precedes data 5. Data considered “valid, real, rich,
deep, thick”
5. Data considered “ hard, reliable, thin, replicable
6. Focus on process 6. Focus on outcomes 7. Tendency not to generalise findings,
contextualization 7. Generalizability
8. Holistic orientation 8. Particularistic orientation 9. Said to be “grounded, discovery-
orientated, exploratory, expansionist, descriptive”
9. Said to be “ungrounded, verification- orientated, confirmatory, reductionist” 10. Approach - inductive, naturalistic,
searches for patterns, seeks pluralism, ends with hypothesis and theory
10. Approach - deductive, begins with hypothesis and theory, seeks consensus
11. Considers researcher as the instrument 11. Questionnaire and attitude scale reliant
12. Uses concepts based on insight, descriptive write up
12. Uses statistical tests and measures, reduces data to numerical indices, abstract language in write up 13. “Meaning” is the central concept 13. Interpreted meaning given little or no consideration
14. Personal involvement and partiality, empathetic understanding
14. Research subjects are recruited, detachment, impartiality, objective portrayal
15. Excludes structured research
instructions due to dynamic nature 15. Well- structured and documented research methods
Characteristics and assumptions of qualitative and non- qualitative approaches. Source: Adapted from Treise (1999)
Page | 88
In examining the qualitative and quantitative approach, Treise (1999) provides a comparison of the characteristics and assumptions of both as described in table 4.3. The chart lists some of the basic differences between the two approaches. In particular clear distinction in ontology and epistemology among the qualitative and non-qualitative groups can be seen.
The qualitative paradigm has also been termed ‘an interpretive framework’ or a “basic set of beliefs that guide action” (Guba, 1990, p.17). All individuals involved in qualitative research are guided by “highly abstract principles” (Bates, 1972, p. 320), which combine ontological, epistemological and methodological beliefs. It is these beliefs which form the researcher’s opinions about the world and consequently how they act within it. These beliefs may be taken for granted, invisible and therefore only assumed. By comparison, some beliefs are known and may be considered controversial or problematic. Ultimately each belief or interpretive paradigm has a particular and somewhat unique impact upon the researcher which in turn influences the questions asked and the interpretation of the phenomena explored (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005).