MTO-E Qualitative Research
Methods
Lecture 1: introduction to qualitative research
Qualitative = understanding how/why, inductive, words/text, participant’s view, proximity (close
contact), process, unstructured/open, rich deep data, interpretation. Bijvoorbeeld; wat is
vriendschap? Voorbeeld; interview.
- quantitative = relationship, measure, numbers, enquete
Qualitative research questions: open questions (how/what), understanding and developing concept,
dealing with complex matters many words needed (explanation).
4 types of research purposes
1a) Exploratory (contextual research). Explore a phenomenon at the start of the research, what
exists.
1b) Descriptive (contextual research). Addressing ‘what’ questions, in-depth, more focused.
2) Explanatory. Asking why questions. Study underlying structures, mechanisms, processes to explain
certain behaviour, actions or events. More inside.
3) Evaluative. Appraising the effectiveness of what exists (policy implementations). Bijvoorbeeld als
de uni een programma opstart om stress te verminderen
4) Generative. Gain insides, to develop theories, strategies or actions.
BOX 2.1 boek richie lewis p41.
Foundations of qualitative research – paradigms
Ontology
Assumptions about the nature of reality. Question: what is real? There can be different perceptions
of reality (observed reality or something that exists only in our heads).
Epistemology
Beliefs about how we can acquire knowledge. Assumptions about the nature of knowledge. Ask
questions about it.
Paradigms in social science research: ontology + epistemology
-Objectivism (realism/empiricism): there is an objective reality we can touch. This is an pipe.
-Constructivism (idealism/interpretivism): our social reality is constructed. Can we objectively
measure friendship? Abstract concept, it exists because people talk about it, cannot observe it.
Constructed in our minds. This is an image of a pipe, construction on paper, we only see colour and
our own head forms the pipe. How people construct meaning from their experiences.
Language; which words are being used influences people. CPR wel kiezen want iedereen doet dat
(norm) dan veel gekozen bijvoorbeeld.
,Tijdlijn + slide hierover met tabel
Positivism: there is something we
can observe, use our senses to
understand.
Post-Positivism:
Interpretivism: more
constructionist, reality Is
constructed, interpretation is very
important
Critical-realism:
Constructionism
Critical theory
Postmodernism
Action research: we need to take
our responsibility and help people
to change their realities.
Oefenvraag antwoord C
Lecture 2
Quality of research according to different paradigms
Good research according to….
- (post) positivism
a) Validity
Findings are an accurate reflection of reality
b) Replicability
Another researcher will be able to conduct the same research
c) Reliability
When another researcher will conduct the research, the results will be the same
Criteria for good qualitative research
- Trustworthiness
a) Credibility: confidence in the truth of the findings.
Techniques to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research. Enhance credibility:
- Prolonged engagement and persistent observation (spending enough time on obtaining results)
- Triangulation (use multiple data sources)
- Peer debriefing (ask a fellow researcher to look at your results)
- Negative case analysis (what is it that makes it so different, how can you explain this)
- Referential adequacy (checking interpretations against data that have not been analysed yet, go
back and forth in your material)
- Member-checking / respondent validation (check your results with members of your group, share
the results to see if my conclusions are correct)
, b) Transferability (/inferential generalization): showing that the findings have applicability in
another context. You want your results to have a larger relevance. Larger applicability
options. Findings could be similar in other contexts.
c) Dependability (/inquiry audit) : showing that the findings are consistent and could be
repeated. Having a researcher not involved in the research process examine both the process
and product of the research study. Having access to all the information of the study to check
if the results would be the same.
d) Confirmability: a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the finings of a study are
shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias motivation or interest. Objectivity
- Confirmability audit (ask other people to examine the whole research/process, it is
confirmable and not too much bias)
- Audit trail (having enough information, is it transparent)
- Triangulation (not using one perspective, compared sources, multiple sources)
- Reflexivity (attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction,
especially to the effect of the researcher at every step of the research process).
Generalizability
Quantitative researchers claims about generalizability
Qualitative researchers inferences about generalizability
- Representative generalizability
Also find in quantative research. Random sample from a sampling frame (all units in the
population). Also referred as external validity. Estimate based on the size of the population.
Qualitative research: small populations, homogeneous populations (characteristics the
same). High estimate of representativeness (a small sample could be representative).
- Inferential / transferability generalizability
When outcomes can be assumed through relevant or similar context. Larger application.
Describe results in the context, many details.
, - Theoretical generalizability
If your research contributes in theories, it has a larger relevance. Beyond the case. Theory
building. Work with a way of sampling to allow this theory building. Select the people for this
purpose.
In qualitative research there is no estimated number of people you need to study. Might use non-
probability samples.
Different types of sampling
1. Purposeful sampling
You select a sample for a purpose. Look for people that are representative.
Logic and power lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth.
2. Snowball sampling
Respondents self can refer you to other persons that meet the criteria. Specific populations.
Who could also be useful for the research. Advantage: useful for networks. Find out how
people relate to one another. To whom would they refer me to? Weakness: variance
depends on networks.
- When respondents are difficult to reach (drug users).
- Experts referring to other experts (respondents are more aware who can provide the
information)
- Valuable respondents may be missing
3. Convenience sampling
Easily accessible. Easily collect data. Low quality
How many people is enough?
- Is your research exploratory or explanatory (in-depth, strict about quality criteria and sample).
- How large is the group of people you want to make statements about?
- How many characteristics do these people have in common? (cultural background)
Reaching theoretical saturation! If no new information is appearing (interview/observation) you
know you have enough data to make some statements.
Research designs
1. Experiments
Causality
Group | Observation – exposure – outcome observation
Controlgroup | observation – no exposure – outcome observation
2. Cross-sectional design
Survey, observation-like, bigger groups
Random sample
Correlations
Group | Obs | Obs | Obs ….
Kijken of de vragen gecodeerd zijn
3. Longitudinal study
Different time periods, moments in time where you would make the observation
See what happens over time
a) panel study (one group, different time, ask questions)
Methods
Lecture 1: introduction to qualitative research
Qualitative = understanding how/why, inductive, words/text, participant’s view, proximity (close
contact), process, unstructured/open, rich deep data, interpretation. Bijvoorbeeld; wat is
vriendschap? Voorbeeld; interview.
- quantitative = relationship, measure, numbers, enquete
Qualitative research questions: open questions (how/what), understanding and developing concept,
dealing with complex matters many words needed (explanation).
4 types of research purposes
1a) Exploratory (contextual research). Explore a phenomenon at the start of the research, what
exists.
1b) Descriptive (contextual research). Addressing ‘what’ questions, in-depth, more focused.
2) Explanatory. Asking why questions. Study underlying structures, mechanisms, processes to explain
certain behaviour, actions or events. More inside.
3) Evaluative. Appraising the effectiveness of what exists (policy implementations). Bijvoorbeeld als
de uni een programma opstart om stress te verminderen
4) Generative. Gain insides, to develop theories, strategies or actions.
BOX 2.1 boek richie lewis p41.
Foundations of qualitative research – paradigms
Ontology
Assumptions about the nature of reality. Question: what is real? There can be different perceptions
of reality (observed reality or something that exists only in our heads).
Epistemology
Beliefs about how we can acquire knowledge. Assumptions about the nature of knowledge. Ask
questions about it.
Paradigms in social science research: ontology + epistemology
-Objectivism (realism/empiricism): there is an objective reality we can touch. This is an pipe.
-Constructivism (idealism/interpretivism): our social reality is constructed. Can we objectively
measure friendship? Abstract concept, it exists because people talk about it, cannot observe it.
Constructed in our minds. This is an image of a pipe, construction on paper, we only see colour and
our own head forms the pipe. How people construct meaning from their experiences.
Language; which words are being used influences people. CPR wel kiezen want iedereen doet dat
(norm) dan veel gekozen bijvoorbeeld.
,Tijdlijn + slide hierover met tabel
Positivism: there is something we
can observe, use our senses to
understand.
Post-Positivism:
Interpretivism: more
constructionist, reality Is
constructed, interpretation is very
important
Critical-realism:
Constructionism
Critical theory
Postmodernism
Action research: we need to take
our responsibility and help people
to change their realities.
Oefenvraag antwoord C
Lecture 2
Quality of research according to different paradigms
Good research according to….
- (post) positivism
a) Validity
Findings are an accurate reflection of reality
b) Replicability
Another researcher will be able to conduct the same research
c) Reliability
When another researcher will conduct the research, the results will be the same
Criteria for good qualitative research
- Trustworthiness
a) Credibility: confidence in the truth of the findings.
Techniques to establish trustworthiness in qualitative research. Enhance credibility:
- Prolonged engagement and persistent observation (spending enough time on obtaining results)
- Triangulation (use multiple data sources)
- Peer debriefing (ask a fellow researcher to look at your results)
- Negative case analysis (what is it that makes it so different, how can you explain this)
- Referential adequacy (checking interpretations against data that have not been analysed yet, go
back and forth in your material)
- Member-checking / respondent validation (check your results with members of your group, share
the results to see if my conclusions are correct)
, b) Transferability (/inferential generalization): showing that the findings have applicability in
another context. You want your results to have a larger relevance. Larger applicability
options. Findings could be similar in other contexts.
c) Dependability (/inquiry audit) : showing that the findings are consistent and could be
repeated. Having a researcher not involved in the research process examine both the process
and product of the research study. Having access to all the information of the study to check
if the results would be the same.
d) Confirmability: a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the finings of a study are
shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias motivation or interest. Objectivity
- Confirmability audit (ask other people to examine the whole research/process, it is
confirmable and not too much bias)
- Audit trail (having enough information, is it transparent)
- Triangulation (not using one perspective, compared sources, multiple sources)
- Reflexivity (attitude of attending systematically to the context of knowledge construction,
especially to the effect of the researcher at every step of the research process).
Generalizability
Quantitative researchers claims about generalizability
Qualitative researchers inferences about generalizability
- Representative generalizability
Also find in quantative research. Random sample from a sampling frame (all units in the
population). Also referred as external validity. Estimate based on the size of the population.
Qualitative research: small populations, homogeneous populations (characteristics the
same). High estimate of representativeness (a small sample could be representative).
- Inferential / transferability generalizability
When outcomes can be assumed through relevant or similar context. Larger application.
Describe results in the context, many details.
, - Theoretical generalizability
If your research contributes in theories, it has a larger relevance. Beyond the case. Theory
building. Work with a way of sampling to allow this theory building. Select the people for this
purpose.
In qualitative research there is no estimated number of people you need to study. Might use non-
probability samples.
Different types of sampling
1. Purposeful sampling
You select a sample for a purpose. Look for people that are representative.
Logic and power lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth.
2. Snowball sampling
Respondents self can refer you to other persons that meet the criteria. Specific populations.
Who could also be useful for the research. Advantage: useful for networks. Find out how
people relate to one another. To whom would they refer me to? Weakness: variance
depends on networks.
- When respondents are difficult to reach (drug users).
- Experts referring to other experts (respondents are more aware who can provide the
information)
- Valuable respondents may be missing
3. Convenience sampling
Easily accessible. Easily collect data. Low quality
How many people is enough?
- Is your research exploratory or explanatory (in-depth, strict about quality criteria and sample).
- How large is the group of people you want to make statements about?
- How many characteristics do these people have in common? (cultural background)
Reaching theoretical saturation! If no new information is appearing (interview/observation) you
know you have enough data to make some statements.
Research designs
1. Experiments
Causality
Group | Observation – exposure – outcome observation
Controlgroup | observation – no exposure – outcome observation
2. Cross-sectional design
Survey, observation-like, bigger groups
Random sample
Correlations
Group | Obs | Obs | Obs ….
Kijken of de vragen gecodeerd zijn
3. Longitudinal study
Different time periods, moments in time where you would make the observation
See what happens over time
a) panel study (one group, different time, ask questions)
