01-11-2021 Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods (1)
To understand socio-spatial actions and socio-spatial decisions, we need to be open to the specificity of the context
and to the individuality of their interpretations. Standardized data and standardized categorizations often ‘miss’ these
contextualities, spatiality’s and individualities, which qualitative research tries to grasp. Qualitative research methods
are therefore crucial for sound social research.
Why is Quali becoming more important?
- Plurality of life-worlds
- Development of (post-)modern social sciences
- Disenchantment of ideal of scientific objectivity
Qualitative research is the study of reasons, meaning and sense behind human actions. It seeks to answer why people
practice certain human actions. It analyses utterances and performances of meaning, mainly through oral
communications, texts, and images.
Quantitative research is the study of numbers. It asks ‘how many’ people practice ‘how many’ different behaviours.
The main tool for this kind of research is the survey. The aim of quantitative analysis is to find numerical patterns in
responses to survey questions or in observed behaviours.
And to find indicators for the magnitude of people's decisions and behaviours.
The research methods used are not conducted according to a fixed standard recipe but are developing parallel to the
insights you gain.
For setting up our research design we need to make several crucial decisions.
- What is my research problem, and what are my research questions? What do we already know about the
problem?
- What cases are important?
- How are they distinguished? For example, with respect to time and place.
- What are relevant data, and what aspects are more important than others in the theoretical and analytical
framework we are using?
- How to obtain these data?
- With what methods? H
- ow to analyze and explain the results?
Crucial issues in setting up your research are validity and reliability. You need to set up your research in such a way
that validity and reliability are as much as possible guaranteed.
- Internal & construct validity = Are inferences correct? Do data reflect reality? Do your observations cover
what you intended to observe?
- External validity = Generalizability: can we develop a general theory?
- Reliability = Are observations independent of (biases or mistakes by) researchers? Are observations
replicable?
Critique that criteria are based on natural science paradigm and do not consider situation of qualitative research:
- Data cannot be separated from researcher (internal validity)
- Case inseparable from its context (external validity)
- Replicability not feasible with complex phenomena (reliability)
- Detachment of researcher impossible, nor desirable (reliability)
But not: anything goes! Other criteria to account for scientific rigor, trustworthiness e.g.
- Credibility (truth value)
- Transferability (applicability)
- Dependability (consistency)
- Confirmability (neutrality)
,Qualitative Quantitative
- Holistic - Reductionist
- Theoretic sampling - Random sampling
- Iterative - Linear
- Studies motivations - Studies overt behaviors
- Provides depth of understanding - Measures level of occurrence
- Subjective - Objective
- Enables discovery - Provides proof
- Explorative, open - Confirmatory, closed
- Allows insights into behavior, - Measures levels of action,
trends, etc… trends, etc…
- Interprets - Describes facts
- Why? - How many? How often?
- Interpretative analysis - Statistical analysis
, 09-11-2021 Theoretical background for Qualitative Research Methods (2)
In a very broad sense, in the philosophy of science, we distinguish between the natural sciences and the social
sciences and humanities. In the natural sciences quantitative approaches, explaining causal relationships, are common
and dominant. In the social sciences and humanities qualitative approaches, explicating the subjective reasons for
human actions and interactions, are much more common and do not aim for explanation but for understanding.
However, the early success of the natural sciences, also coined the ambition of many social scientists to use a similar
approach. It was Auguste Comte, who formulated the philosophical principles for such an approach for the social
sciences, which he called ‘positivism’, which is often associated with quantitative research methods.
Parallel to this development, Edmund Husserl, developed a contrasting approach, acknowledging the special character
of the sciences which deal with human experience and human being and human (inter-)action, which he named
‘Phenomenology’. It is the latter, which forms the general basis for qualitative research methods
Auguste Comte – positivism
For him nothing was self-evident or God given. For him every fact needed to be positively confirmed using rigorous
scientific research methods, inspired by the natural sciences.
Today, in the debate between quantitative and qualitative methods, positivism is sometimes seen as rather
conservative or even reactionary, while the newer qualitative approaches are seen as progressive. However, it is
important to note, that this is partly a misunderstanding.
In his time, his ideas were very emancipatory, trying to overcome the conservative ideas of the church or the
dominant feudal powers, who claimed a monopoly of what was seen a correct knowledge.
Comte’s revolutionary idea, at that time was, that Not God nor the Ruling Powers but empirical facts and observations
should determine what is true.
Key features of positivism:
o A focus on science as a set of statements
o logical structure and coherence of these statements
o Which can be verified, confirmed, or falsified by the empirical observation of reality
o All things are ultimately (objectively) measurable
o Science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the investigator
o Science contains theories which are more or less 1:1 (representative) models of reality
o Science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are different from old ones
o Science is cumulative
o Scientific knowledge is predominantly universal
o Science involves the idea of the unity of science, basically one science – one truth – about one real world.
Edmund Husserl – Phenomenology
Was convinced that the human sciences are very different from the natural sciences, and that their methods should
take this into account. For him Human being is not a neutral and dead thing, but a living, experiencing and thinking
creature, who did not just follow natural laws, but who could make up their own mind, and take their own decisions.
For him there is no way, we could observe the world around us objectively, like August Comte suggested. For him it
was clear, that we do not have direct access to the facts. In our observations we are always influenced by our current
attitude towards the world. How we observe the world, depends on our subjective perspective.
So for Husserl, we do not observe facts, but we observe how these facts, appear to us, from our subjective
perspective. These appearances are what he designates as Phenomena.
Only if we understand our own perspective, if we understand the structure of our experiences, and the way we
subjectively perceive our surroundings, we can get closer to the essence of the things out there.
Key features Phenomenology:
o What we observe is not the object – or a ‘fact’ – as it is in itself, but how it is given in our intentional acts.
o One has to distinguish between the act of consciousness perception and the phenomenon at which it is
directed (the object-in-itself, transcendent to consciousness)
o Knowledge of essences would only be possible by ‘bracketing’ all assumptions about the existence of an
external world and the inessential (subjective) aspects of how the object is concretely given to us.
o The ways in which we direct ourselves toward and perceive those objects is normally conceived of in what he
called the ‘natural standpoint’
, o The ‘natural standpoint’ is characterized by a belief that objects materially exist and exhibit properties that we
see as emanating from them
o Husserl proposed a radical new way of looking at objects by examining how we, in our many ways of being
intentionally directed toward them, actually ‘constitute’ them.
o In the phenomenological way of looking, the object ceases to be something simply ‘external’ and ceases to be
seen as providing indicators about what it is.
Our observations are not just external, but partly also determined internally, and therefore related to our current
perspective, our current situation, and our current doings, as well as our past experiences. The context of the
observation makes a difference. Therefore, observations are also not universal but always contingent. Of course this is
not just true for the people we investigate, but also for the researcher him or herself. So there is a double contingency
involved. So in contrast to the positivistic assumptions, we cannot objectively observe facts, and explain causal
relationships, but we can at best try to interpret what we think we see, when we take all the involved subjectivities
into account, and try to understand what is going on. This is the foundation of an interpretive approach, of an
interpretive qualitative methodology.
Interpretative Approach
o Phenomena do not independently exist ‘out there’, but are based on interpretations
o Intentions of investigator, as well as intentions of investigated subjects, are important if we want to interpret
the world, or if we want to understand the way, people perceive and act in this world
o Through our intentions phenomena are attributed a meaning
o Without considering the specific subjective perspective of the subjects we investigate, we cannot really
understand how and why people act in the way they do
o Research focus shifts from ‘superficial’ analysis and ‘explanation’ of regularities to the understanding of the
way people make sense of the world and act accordingly
o With ‘Sense’ (‘Sinn’) we mean the reasons people have for their (spatial) actions. These reasons can point to:
o Specific conditions of the situation in which one acts
o Rules, norms, expectations
o Preferences, ambitions, moods, habits
o Visions, goals, imaginations, projections of a future situation
o Abilities, competences, means, power, resources, authorities
o Perceptions, meanings, semantics, interpretations
o Etc.
o Understanding (spatial) action is therefore dependent of the context
o As each context is different, generalization is difficult and often not useful
o We have understood (‘Verstehen’) a (spatial) act or decision if we feel that these reasons are plausible and
logical (rational), if they make ‘sense’, when we – put us in the situation and position of the investigated
(empathy, go native)
o We thus reconstruct the motives, logics and rules of (spatial) actions
o Especially if we want to understand human (spatial) actions, and in contrast to natural sciences, we need an
interpretative (hermeneutic) approach.
Historical development
o 1900-1940 traditional -> Focussed on unknown (sub)cultures, and their objective
description
o 1940-1980 modern -> Formalisation of (observation and interpretation) methods
o 1980-1990 crisis of representation -> Critical reflection on position of researcher, research process and
presentation of results
o 1990-… from ‘theory to narrative’ -> Shift from ‘correct’ application of methods, towards the ‘art and politics’
of interpretation and presentation (Science as a story about reality)
Philosophical assumptions
Usually, your implicit or explicit philosophical assumptions can best be described as beliefs about
o Ontology -> is related to your assumptions about the nature of reality. Most researchers conducting
qualitative research assume that reality can be observed and experienced from different perspectives,
