Qualitative Research:
A Framework to Enhance Understanding

Nancy L. Leech, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Colorado at Denver
and Health Sciences Center
E-mail: nancy.leech@cudenver.edu

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Ph.D.
Professor
Sam Houston State University
E-mail:  tonyonwuegbuzie@aol.com

A growing number of researchers in the social sciences label themselves as “qualitative researchers”. Other researchers occasionally venture into undertaking a study that they refer to as representing a “qualitative study”.  When speaking to self-proclaimed qualitative researchers, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to discern what they really do with their research. When asked what conducting qualitative research means, most researchers describe their topics of study, populations of interest, ascribed theories, or methods of collecting data. Some researchers refer to themselves as conducting feminist research or phenomenological studies. Many researchers use the term qualitative researcher to describe what they are not, namely, that they are non-quantitative researchers (Silverman, 2001, p. 25). Indeed, as Schwandt (2000) concluded, “Qualitative research represents a ‘loose coalition of inquirers seemingly united only in their general opposition to…foundationalist-empiricist-representationalist nexus of beliefs’” (p. 203). Yet, as noted by Grahame (1999), “the notion that qualitative research is non-quantitative is true but uninformative: we need more than a negative definition” (p. 4).

The ambiguity that surrounds qualitative research is not surprising given that many qualitative texts do not agree on, and in some cases do not provide, a definition.  In the Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, Schwandt (2001)defines qualitative as “a not-so-descriptive adjective…it does not clearly signal a particular meaning or denote a specific set of characteristics” (p. 213). Further, Denzin and Lincoln (2005) state in the Handbook of Qualitative Research that “the field of qualitative research is defined primarily by a series of essential tensions, contradictions, and hesitations” (p. xi). This ambiguity surrounding the definition and meaning of qualitative research is problematic; how does one teach a qualitative research course when people in the field cannot agree on a single definition? Thus, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of qualitative research in grant funding, the existing definitions of qualitative research, to describe a framework to explain the ambiguity of the definition of what qualitative research is, and to describe where to go from here in a basic qualitative research course.

Definitions of Qualitative Research

According to Eisner and Peshkin (1990), there is “no general agreement about the conduct of …qualitative inquiry; perhaps there never will or can be consensus of the sort that is embodied in the standardized procedures of quantitative research” (p. 1).  Further, in a footnote Denzin and Lincoln (2005) state, “any attempt to give an essential definition of qualitative research requires a qualitative analysis of the circumstances that produce such a definition” (p. 28). Although, interestingly, prior to this footnote, Denzin and Lincoln include some information as to what they believe to be a possible definition of qualitative research. Many qualitative researchers believe, as Jacob (1987) suggests, that qualitative research is what qualitative researchers do.

Many textbook authors have struggled with the issue of defining qualitative research. In the landmark text Naturalistic Inquiry, Lincoln and Guba (1985) devote the entire text to describing and defining qualitative research. Some textbook authors have avoided this problem by illustrating themes or issues (e.g., Berg, 2004; Bogdan & Biklen, 2003), whereas other authors have explained how qualitative research is not quantitative research (Eisner, 1998; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lancy, 1993; Merriam, 1998; Shank, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These descriptions tend to involve long explanations and contain multiple pages, which can create difficulty for novice researchers in discerning the main points. Furthermore, these methods of describing qualitative research can create ambiguity; it is difficult to understand what something is when only given the large concepts or themes that it encompasses (e.g., naturalistic, inductive), or what it is not (e.g., quantitative research).  

Few textbook authors do include a specific definition of qualitative research (e.g., Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Rossman & Rallis, 2003). For example, Rossman and Rallis (2003) define qualitative research as being empirical, natural, and focusing on people:  “Qualitative researchers seek answers to their questions in the real world. They gather what they see, hear, and read from people and places and from events and activities. They do research in natural settings rather than in laboratories or through written surveys” (p. 4).  Creswell (2007) has a more detailed definition that adds to the definition the concepts of creating a picture to analyze with specific information from the respondents. Creswell’s definition of qualitative research is as “Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (p. 37).  Denzin and Lincoln (2000) suggest a different, more complex definition. Their definition, which includes observations, interpretations, and transformations, is as follows:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self…qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (p. 3)

These definitions can be seen only as an attempt at explaining what qualitative research truly is. The problem with defining qualitative research lies with what perspective one has on qualitative research. Qualitative research is an emerging field that is constantly changing, thus, the definition of qualitative research has evolved. Each illustration of themes or issues, each explanation of how qualitative research is not quantitative research, and each definition of qualitative research gives a different perspective on qualitative research as a whole. Yet, it is fractured by every description and definition being separate and including only parts of the whole. To understand better what qualitative research is, it is important to remember that qualitative research is evolving and changing. Moreover, the field of qualitative research needs to strive for a streamlined definition.

Framework for a Possible Definition of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is rich with multiple meanings. We contend there are three steps in understanding what qualitative research is: the pyramid of the history of qualitative research, understanding the beliefs of the researcher, and, finally, understanding the multiple aspects of qualitative inquiry.

Increasing Our Understanding by Looking at the History of Qualitative Research

The history of qualitative research is vast and has been described by authors of a few texts (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). For an in-depth description of the history, readers are encouraged to consult these texts. The history of qualitative research is important because it shows where qualitative research started and where it has gone throughout the century. Most researchers view the history in this manner and utilize the history as a story of where we were and why we are here now. Although this is helpful, it is not complete. Understanding the history is paramount to increasing our understanding of what is qualitative research.

As shown in Table 1 below, the history of qualitative research builds upon itself; each moment in time adds to our understanding and framework of what is qualitative research. Thus, we contend that the history is a compendium of descriptions of what qualitative research is, and understanding the history can add to the overall understanding of what qualitative research is. The framework in Table 1 begins with ethnography of other cultures (Step 1), then, adding ethnography of “other,” which can be seen as conducting ethnographies with anyone, not necessarily with people from other cultures (Step 2). During Step 2, the concept of many types of qualitative inquiry is examined. The third step involves incorporating these multiple types of inquiry, creating a full toolbox of methods to utilize, including methods such as phenomenology, case study, biography, and grounded theory. Then, the idea of writing memoirs of the researcher’s experience is embraced (Step 4). This idea evolved into Step 5 wherein the experience of the researcher is integrated into the research process and the writing. The top of the table has yet to be discovered, this is the future of qualitative research.

Table 1
This qualitative research history table is adapted from the qualitative research history pyramid from Denzin and Lincoln (2005).

Throughout the years, qualitative research has progressed through each of these steps, each time adding to the existing base of ethnography. Some qualitative researchers choose to pick a time period and ignore any new or changing issues in regard to qualitative research; other researchers are in the last step and are on the cutting edge of qualitative research—what Denzin and Lincoln (2005) refer to as the “future moment” (i.e., circa 2000- ). Regardless of where a researcher chooses to reside, all researchers who fit in the model are engaged in qualitative research. As Denzin and Lincoln concisely state, “each of the earlier historical moments is still operating in the present, either as legacy or as a set of practices that researchers continue to follow” (p. 20).

As can be seen by the emergence of qualitative research and the additive effect of these concepts as the years progressed, qualitative research is a compilation of many facets. Because of the additive aspect of the qualitative research pyramid and the choice of some researchers to stay in the past eras, it is understandable that there are not many concise definitions of qualitative research.

Assumptions, Skills, and Theories

Table 2 below presents the two stages of qualitative research: Stage 1 includes three areas of focus from which the qualitative study is undertaken, and Stage 2 incorporates the available choices in methods, traditions, and evidence. The goal of qualitative research typically is to understand the participant’s reality. Therefore, the table is a progression, starting on the far left with the “Focus/Question”, and then moving through each column to the far right column of “Participant’s Reality.” Qualitative research begins with a qualitative research focus or question (Column 1), moves through Stage 1 wherein decisions are made, then into stage two where choices are made as to the tradition, method, and evidence, and then on to the understanding of the participant’s reality.

Table 2

The Layers of what is Qualitative Research

Each cell contains the most common components; thus, these lists are not exhaustive.

The assumptions made in Stage 1 are important to the overall study. Qualitative research has five main assumptions (ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical, and methodological). Many qualitative researchers claim to agree with these assumptions and to use them throughout their research. For example, a researcher might be interested in understanding teachers’ views of standardized testing. After the question is formulated, the assumptions of qualitative research are considered: Does the researcher think that the teachers have multiple realities in regard to standardized testing? Is the researcher willing to be part of the research? Does the researcher believe that research is value laden? Will the researcher feel comfortable using informal language when writing about the study? And, finally, is the best method for understanding this phenomenon an inductive method? Creswell (2007) also stresses the importance of the researcher feeling personally comfortable with these choices.

The next step is to consider the skills of the researcher. The skills of the researcher are rarely discussed in regard to qualitative research. The importance of personal skills through teaching qualitative research to graduate students has been witnessed; some students tend easily to collect data and understand the participant’s reality, whereas others struggle with the initial interview and collecting data in general.

Finally, in Stage 1, the concept of theory needs to be considered. For decades, it has been thought that incorporating theory into the research process improves the design of the study (Denzin, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Theory assists the researcher in narrowing the focus of the concept of interest and in creating a lens from which to view the participants’ reality. It is important to note that theory adds to the design of the study: theory is not the type of study or part of the design. Thus, we contend that using labels such as “Queer Theory Phenomenological research” only creates confusion. Rather, theory is the lens from which the study is being viewed.

Increasing Our Understanding by Assessing Stage 2

Shank (2002) used the metaphor of a lantern to explain qualitative research. According to Shank, by shedding light on areas of interest, the area can be seen more clearly and can be better understood. This description is helpful, but it is incomplete. Part of why qualitative research is an enigma, is that there are many choices in traditions, methods, and types of evidence. To come to a definition of what qualitative research is, these choices need to be examined.

The second stage of Table 2 presents the layers of qualitative research from which researchers can make multiple choices. The first choice the researcher needs to engage in is what type of tradition they will use to guide their studies. Creswell (2007) suggests five traditions: phenomenology, case study, grounded theory, narrative research, and ethnography. In a review of qualitative studies in The Journal of Educational Research, Shank and Villella (2004), utilizing Creswell’s (1994) traditions (i.e., phenomenology, case study, grounded theory, biography, and ethnography), found that Creswell’s outline of traditions was not sufficient to describe all of the studies they reviewed. These authors suggest four criteria for understanding qualitative research; (a) investigative depth (the willingness of the researcher to go below the surface and to inquire unaddressed areas), (b) interpretive adequacy (how well the new area is interpreted), (c) illuminative fertility (using the results to inform practice), and (d) participatory accountability (how the researcher has participated in the study).  Shank and Villella’s criteria add to our understanding of Creswell’s traditions by suggesting alternate dimensions with which to view traditions. Regardless of how a researcher frames her/his qualitative study, the important aspect is to have a framework from which to work.  Having such a framework assists in increasing the rigor of the study (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002; Constas, 1992; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007).

The second part of Stage 2 is methods of data collection. There are many types of data collection available to qualitative researchers. It is important for researchers to consider this decision as an active choice on their part.  Many novice qualitative researchers tend to assume automatically that the interview is the only type of data collection technique available. Yet, as noted by Silverman (2001), “what people say in answer to interview questions does not have a stable relationship with how they behave in naturally occurring situations” (p. 29).

The last part of Stage 2 is types of evidence. Qualitative researchers have choices as to what type of evidence they want to consider when collecting and analyzing qualitative data. Interestingly, many qualitative researchers forget to consider documents and physical artifacts when thinking about data. The environment in which the data are collected is paramount to the participant’s reality. For example, if a participant is feeling harassed at work, interviewing the participant will get at part of the participant’s reality. Going one step further would be to consider the posters on the office walls or the graffiti on the bathroom stalls. Keeping an open mind about the various types of data to collect can increase the rigor of the overall study.

Suggestions for Teaching Qualitative Research Courses: Where to Go From Here

Teaching qualitative research can be daunting; especially considering how the topic is not clearly delineated in textbooks.  Further, qualitative research is a huge field and to attempt to teach it in only one course is a feat in itself. To help novice qualitative researchers understand what qualitative research is, it can be helpful to think outside the box of qualitative research and to think about categorizing and creating boxes for concepts. Most qualitative research texts focus on one layer, or more specifically, one box of the qualitative research framework presented in Table 2.  Therefore, it is important to utilize multiple texts, or at the least, information from multiple texts. Each aspect of qualitative research needs to be included: assumptions, skills of the researcher, theory, traditions, methods of data collection, and types of evidence.

Second, it is important to teach the history of qualitative research. Qualitative research is emergent and constantly changing, yet many researchers stay in past steps. Thus, the past is relevant to one’s current understanding of qualitative research.

Finally, writing about qualitative research is a learned skill. Most students need to practice writing in order to refine their abilities. Giving feedback to students is imperative. In addition, having students read each other’s work can be educational for both the writer and the reader of the manuscript.

Qualitative Research and Grant Funding

With the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the What Works Clearinghouse, and the Campbell Collaborative, most governmental grant agencies almost exclusively fund quantitative studies. The focus has been on studies with experimental designs, power analyses, and complex statistical analyses—with randomized controlled designs being regarded by the grant agencies as the gold standard for research and evaluation. The stated focus is on scientifically based methods, yet, in reality, the spotlight is on quantitative methods because some unknown entity deemed quantitative methods as the one and only method that is scientifically based.

Fortunately, the American Evaluation Association (AEA) has a more open-minded stance. Their recent policy states:

Many methods are capable of demonstrating scientific rigor. For at least a decade, evaluators publicly debated whether newer inquiry methods were sufficiently rigorous.  This issue was settled long ago. Actual practice and many published examples demonstrate that alternative and mixed methods are rigorous and scientific. To discourage a repertoire of methods would force evaluators backward. (AEA, n.d.)

The gold standard should be broader, as Patton (2007) argues, “the gold standard should be methodological appropriateness rather than methodological orthodoxy. Methodological appropriateness means that designs should be judged on the extent to which they answer the inquiry question at hand, not whether they adhere to some preordinate standard” (p. i).

Qualitative research is methodologically appropriate, and thus, should be considered as falling within the gold standard. Having clear definitions and understanding what qualitative research is will hopefully help all researchers and funding agencies see how qualitative research is part of the gold standard.

Conclusion

To strengthen the reputation of qualitative research, qualitative researchers need to have a distinct understanding of what qualitative research is and be able to explain this to other researchers and to lay people. As long as qualitative researchers are unclear, evasive, or use words without clear explanations, what qualitative research is will be unknown and continue to be marginalized by consumers of research, as well as policymakers.  As Hiatt (1986) states:

Qualitative work is in constant, dynamic flux, but moving toward some end-point in an evolutionary way. There are efforts by the mind to concretize meaning and the qualitative dimension has an integrative function for the researcher. Unity provides context and meaning and it is toward such unity that the researcher is striving. Qualitative efforts make use of that part of the person concerned with meaning, truth, purpose or reality – the ultimate significance of things. (p. 737)

We, as qualitative researchers, need to work on creating concrete meaning that we can pass on to students. Furthermore, as Hiatt states, unity among qualitative researchers needs to be addressed so that we can work towards providing a clear understanding of what qualitative research is.

References

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., and Mangione, T. L. (2002) Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher 31(7), 28-38.

Berg, B. L. (2004) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.).  Boston: Pearson.

Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (2003) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Constas, M. A. (1992) Qualitative data analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal 29, 253-266.

Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (1978) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York; McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) Preface. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. ix-xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisner, E. W. (1998) The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Eisner, E. W. and Peshkin, A. (Eds.) (1990) Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York: Columbia Teachers College Press.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A. (1992) Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Grahame, P. (1999) Doing qualitative research: Three problematics. Graduate Program in Applied Sociology  2(1), 4-10. Boston: University of Massachussets.

Hiatt, J. F. (1986) Spirituality, medicine, and healing. Southern Medical Journal 79(6), 736-743.

Jacob, E. (1987) Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research 57, 1-50.

Lancy, D. F. (1993) Qualitative research in education: An introduction to the major traditions. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985).  Naturalistic inquiry.  Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Merriam, S. B. (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. and Leech, N. L. (2007) A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 41, 105-121.

Patton, M. Q. (2007) Forward. Research in the Schools, 13, i-ii.

Rossman, G. and Rallis, S. (2003) Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermenueutics, and social constructivism. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (2001) Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shank, G. D. (2002) Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.

Shank, G. D. and Villella, O. (2004) Building on new foundations: Core principles and new directions for qualitative research. The Journal of Educational Research  98(1), 46-55.

Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing   talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)

Return to AE Home

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.