Qualitative Research Assessed

Qualitative Research Assessed

In summary, qualitative research is strong for :

The attention to detail, the ability to embrace both verbal and non-verbal behaviour, to penetrate fronts, discover meanings, and reveal the subtlety and complexity of cases or issues.

Theory is generated from the empirical data, and consequently there is 'closeness of fit' between theory and data.

Although this kind of research is sometimes criticised for not being generalisable, there are two ways in which it is, namely a) through the theory that is generated. Such theory then becomes available to others to test and apply - see the example above on differentiation-polarisation; and b) though it might be only a single case study, it might contribute to an archive of studies on a particular issue which then become reinterpreted. Hargreaves (1988), for example, working from a number of existing qualitative studies that had researched the social circumstances of teaching, developed a different explanation of teaching quality from 'official' ones which placed emphasis on the personal qualities of teachers. Ball (1987) similarly drew on a number of qualitative studies to generate a theory of school organisation.

Other strengths, emerging from the Nias reading, are: a) the way her own self (experience, disposition, interests) related to the research and gave her opportunities to advance the work; b) how the quality of her data 'challenged' her to search for interconnections, and how she found 'unexpected reefs' under her feet; c) the benefits of time to think; d) the nature of qualitative data as a seed-bed for ideas, and chaos as a prelude to creativity; e) the recognition of weaknesses in the study, but f) seeing the main strength as the insights the research generated and how they will be used by others. As a matter of interest, the insights of Nias' (1989) research have been extensively used by others throughout the world.

As for difficulties and weaknesses:

It has been argued that single qualitative studies cannot provide grounds for generalising across cases - though see above.

Immersion in the depths of a qualitative study can lead to either or both 'going native' (see above) and 'macro blindness', that is to say the researcher might offer explanations in terms of the situation under observation, oblivious to more powerful forces operating on the situation from outside.

Qualitative research can be a high-risk, low-yield enterprise. It can take time to negotiate access, assemble a sample, develop trust and rapport, find out what is 'going on' or what people are thinking. 'Hanging around' and 'muddling through' can bring worries. Maybe one will not find 'reefs beneath one's feet' and drown in the maelstrom as a result!

Qualitative studies are often accused of being impressionistic, subjective, biased, idiosyncratic and lacking in precision. Some of the bias comes through, typically, in the rhetorical presentation of accounts (Atkinson, 1990). Researchers might use a number of rhetorical devices, such as metaphor, jargon, 'loaded' terminology, selected and variable use of transcript, quotations, selective use of examples, to subtly persuade the reader to the author's line of argument. However, although this is a charge that might be made of particular studies, it is not an essential one of the approach. As we have seen above, there are procedures available to establish validity and rigour, and these should be demonstrated in the presentation.