historical case study qualitative research

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 Historical Overview of Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences

Svend Brinkmann, Department of Communication & Psychology, University of Aalborg

Michael Hviid Jacobsen, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University

Søren Kristiansen, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Aalborg University

• Published: 02 September 2020
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Qualitative research does not represent a monolithic, agreed-on approach to research but is a vibrant and contested field with many contradictions and different perspectives. To respect the multivoicedness of qualitative research, this chapter will approach its history in the plural—as a variety of histories . The chapter will work polyvocally and focus on six histories of qualitative research, which are sometimes overlapping, sometimes in conflict, and sometimes even incommensurable. They can be considered articulations of different discourses about the history of the field, which compete for researchers’ attention. The six histories are: (a) the conceptual history of qualitative research, (b) the internal history of qualitative research, (c) the marginalizing history of qualitative research, (d) the repressed history of qualitative research, (e) the social history of qualitative research, and (f) the technological history of qualitative research.

History writing is not only about charting the past but also about prospects for the future. There is no doubt that one’s way of depicting the past is greatly important for how the future will unfold. This holds for human history in general but is perhaps particularly true for a contested field such as qualitative research. For decades, especially in the years following the rise of positivist social science in the mid-20th century, qualitative research methods were considered of little value, and some researchers even deemed them unscientific. Fortunately, this situation has been changing in recent years, and while disciplines such as social anthropology and communication studies have always been open to qualitative inquiry (and have even been built around it in the case of ethnography), disciplines in the health sciences and psychology are now rediscovering their roots in qualitative studies of human lives and social phenomena. Most social sciences, such as sociology and political science, lie somewhere between an unproblematic acceptance of and mild hostility toward qualitative inquiry, with huge local differences concerning openness toward qualitative research.

In this chapter, we do not seek to articulate the history of qualitative research in the social sciences, because this could easily monopolize one interpretation of the past with unfortunate consequences for the future. Qualitative research does not represent a monolithic, once-and-for-all, agreed-on approach to research but is a vibrant and contested field with many contradictions and perspectives. To respect the multivoicedness of qualitative research and inquire into its past in a way that is more congenial to a qualitative stance, we will present a variety of histories (in the plural) of qualitative research in the social sciences. Some of these histories are quite well known to insiders of the field, while others may be more surprising and perhaps even provocative. One thing to be avoided is writing the historical narratives as Whig history , presenting the development of qualitative research as necessarily progressing toward enlightenment and liberation. There is still a tendency among some qualitative researchers to present their methods of inquiry as inherently more humane and liberating than the “objectifying” measures of quantitative researchers. This, we find, is a myth—which sometimes goes by the name qualitative ethicism (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005 )—but it is a myth that may be understandable as qualitative researchers here and there feel marginalized and have been looking for solid arguments to justify their practices. The marginalization of qualitative research, however, is possibly itself another myth that we will challenge in the multiperspectival histories to be unfolded in this chapter.

History writing in any field presupposes that it is possible to delineate and delimit the field whose history an individual is interested in recounting. This is a significant problem in qualitative research, so this gives us one further reason to approach the matter in terms of histories in the plural. We are aware that interesting accounts of the historical development of qualitative research exist, such as Denzin and Lincoln’s useful depiction of the so-called eight historical moments in the development of qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011 ). We believe, however, that there are too many separate qualitative histories in the social science disciplines and too little overall cumulative development for us to dare attempt a grand narrative of the history of qualitative research.

To repeat our basic point, history writing is not just about the past but also about the present and the future. When one knows how something came to be, one will often know what it currently is, and one will have a powerful voice in determining how it will develop in the future. In what follows, we will work polyvocally and focus on six histories of qualitative research, which are sometimes overlapping, sometimes in conflict, and sometimes even incommensurable. They can be considered articulations of different discourses about the history of the field, which compete for researchers’ attention. The six histories are: (a) the conceptual history of qualitative research, (b) the internal history of qualitative research, (c) the marginalizing history of qualitative research, (d) the repressed history of qualitative research, (e) the social history of qualitative research, and (f) the technological history of qualitative research.

These histories represent our selection. They are not representative or exhaustive of all possible histories about qualitative research, and others would undoubtedly have cut the historical cake differently. Therefore, ironically, this chapter, with its preselected histories, might itself become a subject of qualitative scrutiny. As in all qualitative research, it remains a fundamental premise that different aspects of reality are salient for different researchers, but as always, this should be considered a virtue rather than a vice. It enables us to celebrate the richness of a past that allows us to reflect on it from so many angles, giving us so many interpretations. Not all histories, however, are given equal space in our account. With some of them, we tell a short story, perhaps offering a novel perspective, while with others, we recount a longer and more elaborated story. This goes, in particular, for the second internal history of qualitative research, concentrating in some detail on giants such as Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Blumer, Goffman, and Garfinkel. We have been guided in our selection by an ambition to understand the development of qualitative research as more than a pure history of ideas. We will argue against this form of idealism, which looks at theories and paradigms in abstraction from broader social, cultural, political, and technological forces; and we will try to show that it has often been exactly such forces that have been pushing qualitative research forward (or, perhaps in some cases, backward). This should not be thought of as rendering qualitative research invalid, because no form of research exists in a historical vacuum, but it should instead enable qualitative researchers now and in the future to understand the complexities of their practices better.

The Conceptual History of Qualitative Research

Our first history is a basic conceptual history of the term qualitative research . While the term itself is much younger than one would think, the adjective qualitative has a longer history. Medieval philosophers of scholasticism distinguished qualia (the qualities of things) from quanta (the quantities) hundreds of years ago, and, with modern philosophy from the 17th century onward, empiricist philosophers like John Locke argued that there are different kinds of qualities: On the one hand, primary qualities were thought to be independent of observers and include, for example, extension, number, and solidity. Secondary qualities, on the other hand, were thought to be produced as effects in observers, such as colors, tastes, and smells. Modern philosophers—those who worked in the postmedieval world (Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc.)—confined the secondary qualities to the subjective mind, since the new natural scientists (Galileo, Newton) had seemingly demonstrated that objective reality is nothing but matter in motion. The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics, Galileo said, implying a metaphysics of quantities as the primary reality. A new subjective/objective dichotomy thus arose, relegating human experience and all the sounds, sights, and smells that we live with to the realm of the subjective. In many ways, qualitative researchers in the 21 st century still struggle with this issue and are sometimes accused of being unscientific because of the significance of subjectivity in their endeavors, having inherited the problem of objectivity versus subjectivity in large part from 17th-century metaphysics.

Not all philosophers after Locke, or all scientists after Galileo and Newton, were satisfied with the division of the world into objective primary qualities (qualities that can be studied scientifically) and subjective secondary qualities. There is a great difference, Goethe argued in 1810 in his Theory of Colors , between studying colors in terms of Newtonian optics and in terms of human experience, and although the latter cannot reasonably be reduced to the former, it does not mean that it is any less important or amenable to systematic scientific studies. As an example of a field of human experience, Goethe argued that our understanding of colors has suffered greatly from being understood in terms of mechanical optics (see Robinson, 2002 , p. 10), and one can read his theory as an early qualitative study of the phenomenology of colors (see also Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008 , for a reading of Goethe as a phenomenologist avant la lettre ).

Moving from discussing the term qualitative to discussing qualitative research , we may note that it was only quite late in the 20th century that qualitative research became a self-defining field of inquiry, although researchers had been employing similar methodologies before. In his book on writing up qualitative research, Harry Wolcott ( 2009 ) reminded us that “prior to the past three or four decades, not much had been written about field methods” (p. 80); he continued,

As best I recall, the phrase “qualitative research” was rarely (never?) heard in the 1960s. Of what had been written earlier, outside their respective academic disciplines, the same few references and the same few illustrative studies were cited almost to the exclusion of all others. (p. 80)

He mentions Bronislaw Malinowski’s introduction to his 1922 classic Argonauts of the Western Pacific and William F. Whyte’s 1943 Street Corner Society , both of which were first and foremost ethnographies—and only secondarily methodologies treatises. Prior to around 1970, researchers in sociology and anthropology looked to such classics for inspiration rather than to specific methodological handbooks on “qualitative research.”

Wolcott’s memories seem to be corroborated by a search in contemporary scientific databases. A general search in all databases of the Web of Knowledge, Science Citation Index Expanded (which contains articles that date back to 1899 from all sciences), reveals that the term qualitative was widely used from 1900 but only in natural sciences such as chemistry. Even today, qualitative analysis remains an important subdiscipline in chemistry (working with the analysis and classification of chemical compounds) alongside the quantitative subdisciplines of this science. The first article that appears in a broad search is from 1900 and bears the title “On the Qualitative Separation of Nickel from Cobalt by the Action of Ammonium Hydroxide on the Ferricyanides” by Browning and Hartwell. If one excludes the natural and technical sciences, then the term qualitative appears in early psychological papers—for example, “A Qualitative Analysis of Tickling—Its Relation to Cutaneous and Organic Sensation,” published in 1908, and “Some Qualitative Aspects of Bitonal Complexes” from 1921, both appearing in the American Journal of Psychology . These texts belong to the psychology of perception and come quite close to physiology (or psychophysiology , as it was called). The term qualitative in the early 20th century was thus closely connected to natural science disciplines such as chemistry, physiology, and the psychology of perception and appeared much later in the social sciences as such. According to Karpatschof ( 2010 ), who studied the emergence of qualitative methods within the social sciences, the term was hardly used until 1970, which is a kind of historical take-off point, after which there was an exponential growth in the discourse of qualitative methods in the social sciences. This has continued to the present day, and we have recently witnessed a veritable boom of qualitative research in the human and social sciences, which is seen not only in the output of research publications that employ qualitative methods, but also especially in the numerous methodology books that are published every year. As an example, if one looks at most catalogs from academic publishing houses and scans the pages of new titles within disciplines such as sociology, the new qualitative research titles will often greatly outnumber the new titles within quantitative methodology.

The question then becomes, Why did a need arise around 1970 for qualitative research to define itself as such in the social sciences, often antagonistically in relation to what it is not (i.e., quantitative research)? Why at this particular point in time? After all, books employing interviewing and fieldwork had been published earlier in the 20th century but without invoking the qualitative–quantitative binary. And why do we find in recent decades a need to overcome this distinction again, witnessed, in particular, in the wave of so-called mixed methods? There are no simple answers to these questions, but it seems likely that the general growth in knowledge production in the latter half of the 20th century, with a new “knowledge economy” and increased significance of technoscientific knowledge, pushed researchers to identify with specific traditions of knowledge production. Karpatschof ( 2010 ) argued that social anthropologists have always used qualitative methods because they have, as a rule, studied “traditional societies,” whereas sociologists have more often used quantitative methods because they have studied modern or serialized societies with demographics that easily lend themselves to quantitative studies. We may speculate that qualitative research gained in importance after 1970 with the emergence of postmodernity, signaling a new dynamic, multiperspectival, and emergent social complexity that cannot easily be captured using quantitative methods (we will return to this idea when we address the social history of qualitative research). Also, with the disputes around positivism as a philosophy of science, which began in the middle of the century, a need arose to signal that one can work systematically and methodically without subscribing to the tenets of positivism, and here the term qualitative research came in handy. Another way of expressing this argument has been put forward by Jovanovic ( 2011 ), who argued that to fully understand the emergence and development of qualitative approaches, one must put the historical trajectory of the quantitative–qualitative divide under scrutiny. As Jovanovic pointed out, qualitative research is much more than just methods, procedures, and techniques. It is in fact an entire worldview. Qualitative research thus may entail an understanding of human beings and the world that is fundamentally different from quantitative research, and therefore a “plausible positioning of qualitative research in the history of social sciences and in its social context requires a historical reconstruction of the processes by which the quantitative–qualitative distinction has become an intellectual as well as a social tool” (Jovanovic, 2011 , p. 4). In conducting a reconstruction of the sociohistorical processes that laid the grounds for the emergence of modern science—a process that is labeled the quest for certainty —Jovanovic illuminated some of the very important processes in both the emergence of qualitative research and its reemergence in the late 1960s and 1970s. All in all, it was seemingly a mix of political and philosophical discussions that would drive the development of qualitative research forward, as we will see further reflected in the histories that follow.

The Internal History of Qualitative Research

There are many—at times conflicting—schools of thought, traditions, paradigms, and perspectives included under the heading of qualitative research (Brinkmann, 2018 ). Moreover, it seems as if the realm of what is defined as qualitative research is constantly expanding (Flick, 2002 ). Telling the internal history of qualitative research means articulating how the history looks to dedicated qualitative researchers from inside the field. We will unfold this history by emphasizing three philosophical foundations of qualitative research: (a) the German tradition of Verstehen (Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Gadamer) leading to different hermeneutic perspectives such as Geertz in anthropology, (b) the phenomenological tradition (Husserl) leading to different phenomenological research methods, and finally (c) the North American traditions of pragmatism, Chicago sociology, Goffman’s dramaturgical approach, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology that in different ways remain important to current concerns in the social sciences. We will also briefly address ethnographic fieldwork as an approach that cuts across most of the paradigmatic differences in qualitative inquiry.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation and thus is fundamental to much, if not all, qualitative research. Originally, with Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), hermeneutics was developed as a methodology for interpreting texts, notably biblical texts (see Brinkmann, 2005 , 2018 ). There was at the time a pressing need to find a way to understand the scriptures correctly. With Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) in the late 19th century, hermeneutics was extended to human life itself, conceived as an ongoing process of interpretation. Dilthey developed a descriptive psychology, an approach to understanding human life that was fundamentally different from how the natural sciences work. We explain nature through scientific activity, Dilthey said, but we must understand human cultural and historical life. A life, as the hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricoeur said a century after Dilthey, “is no more than a biological phenomenon as long as it has not been interpreted” (Ricoeur, 1991 , p. 28). And qualitative researchers are (or should be, according to the hermeneutic approach to human science) in the business of understanding the interpretations that already operate in people’s lives, individually and collectively, which is in effect to interpret a range of interpretations (as we touch on in the next section, sociologist Anthony Giddens once referred to this as one aspect of a double hermeneutics ; Giddens, 1976 ).

The dichotomization of Erklären and Verstehen has been very influential in separating quantitative from qualitative research, with the implication that explanation is about bringing individual observations under a general law (this is known as the covering law model of scientific work; see Hempel, 1942 ), while understanding is something more particularistic that rests on the specific qualitative features of the situation in which someone acts. There is a difference, for example, between explaining the movements of objects in space by invoking laws of nature as articulated in physics and understanding why someone decided to do something at a particular moment in that person’s life. In the latter case, Dilthey would say, we must understand the particularities of that person’s life, and putative universal laws of human behavior are of little use. The situations and episodes studied by qualitative researchers are, like historical events, most often unique in the sense that they only happen once. For that reason, it is not possible to bring them under universal laws.

Martin Heidegger’s (1889–1976) Being and Time from the early 20th century is often cited as the work that inaugurated a shift from Dilthey’s life hermeneutics to what Heidegger would call ontological hermeneutics (Heidegger, 1927 ). The question of Schleiermacher’s methodological hermeneutics had been, How can we correctly understand the meaning of texts? The epistemologically oriented hermeneutics from Dilthey had asked, How can we understand our lives and other people? But ontological hermeneutics—or fundamental ontology , as Heidegger also called it (p. 34)—prioritizes the question, What is the mode of being of the entity who understands? (Richardson, Fowers, & Guignon, 1999 , p. 207). Being and Time aims to answer this question and can thus be said to be an interpretation of interpreting, or a philosophical anthropology, which has been formative in relation to much qualitative research in the hermeneutic tradition.

Heidegger’s name for the entity that understands is Dasein , and the being of Dasein is unlike the being of other entities in the universe. Physical entities such as molecules, tables, and chairs are things that have categorical ontological characteristics, whereas human beings, or Dasein , are histories or events and have what Heidegger called existentials as their ontological characteristics (Polkinghorne, 2004 , pp. 73–74). These are affectedness ( Befindlichkeit ; we always find ourselves “thrown” into situations where things already matter and affect us), understanding ( Verstehen ; we can use the things and episodes we encounter in understanding the world), and articulation or telling ( Rede ; we can to some extent articulate the meanings things have) (Dreyfus, 1991 ). In short, humans are creatures that are affected by what happens, can understand their worlds, and communicate with others; together, these features can be said to comprise an interpretative qualitative stance in human and social science research.

For Heidegger and later hermeneuticists such as Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) and the contemporary philosopher Charles Taylor, understanding is not something we occasionally do, for example, by following certain procedures or rules. Rather, understanding is, from the hermeneutic perspective, the very condition of being human (Schwandt, 2000 , p. 194). We always see things as something, human behavior as meaningful acts, letters in a book as conveying some meaningful narrative. In a sense, this is something we do, and hermeneutic writers argue that all such understanding is to be thought of as interpretation, and it is exactly this process that interpretative social science aims to engage in. To study culture is, in Clifford Geertz’s words, to study “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973 , p. 89). When seeking to understand the cultural symbolic system, the qualitative researcher should engage in “thick description,” Geertz said, that captures the contextual features that render any individual action or event meaningful. The researcher interprets members of a culture, who already operate with more or less implicit self-interpretations of their own actions. This, however, should not be understood as implying that people normally make some sort of mental act in interpreting the world. Interpretation here is not like the mental act of interpreting a poem, for example. It is not usually an explicit, reflective process, but rather, in the Heideggerian tradition, is seen as something based on skilled, everyday modes of comportment (Packer, 2011 ; Polkinghorne, 2004 ). This also means that many hermeneutic qualitative researchers have been skeptic about “method” as the way to understanding other people (which is one goal of qualitative inquiry). Instead, they argue, we understand others by spending time with them and talking to them, and this cannot be put into strict methodological formulas.

The idea of reflexivity , which is central to much qualitative research, has also been articulated within hermeneutic philosophy. Interpretation depends on certain prejudices , as Gadamer famously argued, without which no understanding would be possible (Gadamer, 1960 ). Knowledge of what others are doing and of what our own activities mean “always depend[s] upon some background or context of other meanings, beliefs, values, practices, and so forth” (Schwandt, 2000 , p. 201). There are no fundamental “givens,” for all understanding depends on a larger horizon of nonthematized meanings. This horizon is what gives meaning to everyday life activities, and it is what we must engage with as we do qualitative inquiry—both as something that can break down and necessitate a process of inquiry and as something that we can reflexively try to make explicit in an attempt to attain a level of objectivity (in the sense of objectivity about subjectivity). The latter is often referred to by qualitative methodologists as making one’s preunderstandings or prejudices explicit. Gadamer said,

In fact history does not belong to us; we belong to it. Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society, and state in which we live. The focus of subjectivity is a distorting mirror. The self-awareness of the individual life is only a flickering in the closed circuits of historical life. That is why the prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being . (Gadamer, 1960 , pp. 276–277)

Gadamer argues that this makes the condition of human and social science quite different from the one we find in the natural sciences “where research penetrates more and more deeply into nature” (Gadamer, 1960 , p. 284). In the human and social sciences, there can be no “object in itself” to be known (p. 285), because interpretation is an ongoing and open-ended process that continuously reconstitutes its object. The interpretations of social life offered by researchers in the human and social sciences are an important addition to the repertoire of human self-interpretation, and influential fields of description offered by human science, such as psychoanalysis, can even affect the way whole cultures interpret themselves. This means that “social theories do not simply mirror a reality independent of them; they define and form that reality and therefore can transform it by leading agents to articulate their practices in different ways” (Richardson et al., 1999 , p. 227). Like the pragmatists would say (see the section “North American Traditions” later in this chapter), social theories are tools that may affect and transform those agents and practices that are theorized. Thus, Giddens ( 1993 , pp. 9–13) used the term double hermeneutics to describe the idea that social science implies researchers interpreting the knowledge (or interpretations) of research participants and that the findings of social scientists (i.e., concepts and theories) continuously reenter and reshape the social worlds that they describe. Others, such as Kenneth Gergen ( 2001 ), have conceptualized this as generative theory , thus connecting hermeneutic ideas with contemporary forms of social constructionism within qualitative inquiry.

In short, hermeneutics is one of the most important philosophical traditions to have informed qualitative inquiry. Denzin and Lincoln ( 2011 , p. 13) simply referred to the many qualitative paradigms, ranging from constructivism and feminism to cultural studies and queer theory, as interpretative paradigms, thus stressing this legacy from hermeneutics.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is, in one sense, a more specific philosophical tradition that informs qualitative inquiry, but, in another sense, it can be used to encompass almost all forms of qualitative research. Phenomenology in the general sense is the study of phenomena —in other words, of the world as it appears to experiencing and acting human beings. A phenomenological approach will insist on taking human experience seriously, in whichever form it appears. According to Amedeo Giorgi, a leading phenomenological psychologist who concentrates on phenomenology in the more specific sense, it is “the study of the structure, and the variations of structure, of the consciousness to which any thing, event, or person appears” (1975, p. 83).

As a philosophy, phenomenology was founded by Edmund Husserl around 1900; it was further developed as an existential philosophy by Martin Heidegger (who was also counted among the hermeneuticists discussed previously) and then in an existential and dialectical direction by Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The subject matter of phenomenology began with consciousness and experience and was expanded to include the human lifeworld and to take account of the body and human action in historical contexts by Merleau-Ponty and Sartre (see Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 , on which the following is based). The goal in Husserlian phenomenology was to arrive at an investigation of essences or to describe the essential structures of human experience from a first-person perspective. Phenomenology was then a strict descriptive philosophy, employing the technique of reduction , which means to suspend one’s judgment as to the existence or nonexistence of the content of an experience. The reduction is today often pictured as a “bracketing,” an attempt to place the common sense and scientific foreknowledge about the phenomena within parentheses to arrive at an unprejudiced description of the essence of the phenomena (see Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ). So, a phenomenologist can study the experience of any human phenomenon (e.g., the experience of guilt) without taking a stand on the issue, whether the phenomenon is real, legitimate, or illusory (e.g., one can study guilt as an experienced phenomenon without discussing whether there is a reason to feel guilt in a given situation or whether it is correlated with this or that neurochemical process or physiological response). The subject’s experience is the important phenomenological reality.

The important concept of the lifeworld eventually became central to Husserl. He introduced the concept in 1936 in The Crisis of the European Sciences (Husserl, 1954 ) to refer to the intersubjective and meaningful world in which humans conduct their lives and experience significant phenomena. It is a prereflective and pretheorized world in which phenomena appear meaningful before they become subject to theoretical analysis. If the whole range of experienced phenomena did not appear in the lifeworld, there would be no reason to investigate them scientifically, because there would, in a sense, be nothing to investigate. For phenomenologists, there is thus a primacy of the lifeworld as experienced, since this is prior to the scientific theories we may formulate about it. This was well expressed by Merleau-Ponty:

All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my own particular point of view, or from some experience of the world without which the symbols of science would be meaningless. The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced, and if we want to subject science itself to rigorous scrutiny and arrive at a precise assessment of its meaning and scope, we must begin by re-awakening the basic experiences of the world of which science is the second order expression. (Merleau-Ponty, 1945 , p. ix)

Using a metaphor, we can say that the sciences may give us maps, but the lifeworld is the territory or the geography of our lives. Maps make sense only on the background of the territory, where human beings act and live, and should not be confused with it. Phenomenologists are not against scientific abstractions or maps, but they insist on the primacy of concrete qualitative descriptions of experience—of that which is prior to maps and analytic abstractions.

Today, phenomenological approaches have branched out and proliferated in many directions within qualitative inquiry. There are specialized phenomenological approaches within psychology (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2008 ) and anthropology (Jackson, 1996 ), for example, and in sociology, phenomenology was introduced primarily through the writings of Alfred Schütz and, later, his students, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, whose approach heavily influenced some of the North American traditions mentioned in the following section.

North American Traditions

Apart from the characteristically Continental European traditions, a number of traditions developed on the North American continent during the 20th century that in important ways supplemented, consolidated, and expanded the focus from hermeneutics and phenomenology. Many of these at the time novel, theoretical perspectives are still very much alive on the American continent and elsewhere. These qualitatively inspired traditions that saw the light of day, particularly in the United States during the 20th century, are often described as microsociology, social psychology , or the sociologies of everyday life (see Jacobsen, 2009 ).

One of the most influential, significant, and lasting internal stories of qualitative research has its roots in the pragmatic philosophy that developed on the North American continent in the latter part of the 19th century and later spread also to the European continent. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that is concerned with the practical outcomes of human action and that is therefore also concerned with the use value of science and the practical evaluation of “truth.” Truth, for the pragmatists, is always something that finds its expression in practical circumstances (an instrumental view of truth) and thus is not a preestablished, fixed, substantial, or sedimented dimension of knowledge. Contrary to representationalist theories of science, pragmatism is distinctly nonrepresentative; the purpose of scientific practice is not to represent reality as it is, but rather to allow humans to understand and control the world they are part of through knowledge. The key protagonists of pragmatism in the early years were Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead. Each contributed in his own way to the development of pragmatism, not as a coherent whole, but rather as a new perspective on science, democracy, and education. Specifically, pragmatism supports an empirical—as opposed to a theoretical or scholastic—perspective on science. It is in the practical utility of knowledge that science ultimately stands its test. As James ( 1907 ) once insisted,

A pragmatist turns his back resolutely and once and for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power.… It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against dogma, artificiality and the pretence of finality in truth. (pp. 30–31)

Early on, pragmatists were particularly critical of the prevalence of behaviorist science, according to which human beings were seen as mechanically responding to stimuli from the outside. Instead, pragmatists proposed that humans are meaning-seeking subjects who communicate through the use of language and constantly engage in reflective interaction with others. According to pragmatic philosophers, human beings are therefore concerned with the situational, the practical, and the problem-solving dimensions of their lives. This also goes for social scientific endeavors. In his book How We Think , John Dewey ( 1910 ) developed a five-step research strategy or investigation procedure—sometimes also referred to as abduction (according to Peirce as a supplement to the approaches of deduction and induction)—according to which the investigator follows five steps toward obtaining knowledge. First, there is the occurrence of an unresolved situational problem—practical or theoretical—that creates genuine doubt. Second is a specification of the problem in which the investigator might also either systematically or more loosely collect data about the problem at hand. Third, the investigator—now equipped with a specification of the problem—by way of his creative imagination introduces a hypothesis or a supposition about how to solve the problem. Fourth, the proposed hypothesis is elaborated and compared to other possible solutions to the problem, and the investigator, based on reasoning, carefully considers the possible consequences of the proposed hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis is put into practice through an experimental or empirical testing by which the investigator checks whether the intended consequences occur according to expectations and whether the problem is solved (Dewey, 1910 ). This research strategy thus begins with genuine puzzlement and ends with problem solving.

In general, pragmatists therefore have been concerned with what they term practical reasoning ; they are thus preoccupied with knowledge that has some practical impact in and on the reality in which it is used. Knowledge is active, not passive. Without privileging any specific part of the methodological toolbox, with its emphasis on abductive procedures, pragmatism has proved very useful, particularly in explorative qualitative research as a framework for practice- and problem-oriented investigation, and pragmatism has, for instance, inspired researchers working within the so-called grounded theory perspective (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 )—in fact, one of the first self-denoted and systematically described qualitative methodologies—in which the purpose is to create workable scientific knowledge that can be applied to daily life situations. In recent years, sociologists, philosophers, and others have begun to take up pragmatism after several years of absence from the intellectual agenda. There is thus mentioning of a “revival of pragmatism” in the new millennium (Sandbothe, 2000 ) that, for example, is evident in the works of Richard Rorty and Richard Sennett, just as the French sociologist Luc Boltanski and his colleagues have heralded a pragmatic turn within French social theory, and within German sociology Hans Joas has been one of the key exponents of pragmatist-inspired social science.

Pragmatism heavily influenced the founding of the discipline of sociology on the North American continent. The official “date of birth” of sociology is often regarded as the opening of the first sociology department at the University of Chicago in 1892. The Chicago school of sociology during the first decades of the 20th century was instrumental in developing the discipline in general, and “members” such as Robert E. Park, Florian Znaniecki, and William I. Thomas were particularly prominent in advancing a specifically qualitative stance in sociology. As such, and because of their inspiration from pragmatism, the Chicago sociologists were not keen on theoretical refinement in itself, believing sociology should be an empirical science and not a scholastic endeavor. As Park said, “We don’t give a damn for logic here. We want to know what people do!” Knowing “what people do” thus became a trademark of the Chicago sociologists, and a range of empirical studies from the early 20th century illustrate the prevalence of qualitative approaches and methods such as document analysis, interviews, and participant observation. The Chicago sociologists were keen to get out and study social life directly, often using participant observation. The purpose was to create conceptual apparatuses and theoretical ideas based on empirical material. Inspired by pragmatist notions about the use value of science, Robert E. Park wanted sociology through empirical research to be part of public discussions, debates, and politics as a crucial part of modern democratic society. According to him, sociologists should leave the library and their offices and go out and “get the seat of their pants dirty in real research,” as he once told his students (Park, as cited in Lindner, 1996 , p. 81). Moreover, some of the early Chicago sociologists—Jane Addams, for example—also pioneered social work and action research and wanted to use sociology to promote social reform. By using the city of Chicago (a city with a population size that increased 10-fold in less than 100 years) as an empirical laboratory for all sorts of investigations, the sociologists explored—and still explore—city life as a concrete environment for understanding more encompassing social changes and transformations. In general, the Chicago school has throughout the years been characterized by a distinct qualitative and ethnographic orientation, focusing on studying people in their natural surroundings (the city), being critical of nonempirical research and theory, and being driven by a desire to uncover and understand patterns of human interaction. As Martin Bulmer pinpointed,

[All the Chicago sociologists were] in some ways empiricists, keen upon the use of hypotheses and experimental verification.… Axioms, postulates, rational deductions, ideas and ideals are all deemed valuable when they can be made to function in actual experience, in the course of which they meet with constant modification and improvement.… All display the attitude of enquirers rather than of expositors of absolute knowledge; their most confident affirmations are expressed in a tone that shows that they do not regard them as final. (Bulmer, 1984 , p. 32)

Despite their preference for qualitative methods, Chicago sociologists have used any kind of material available for studying social life. Thus, there are different strands within the Chicago school: the human ecology strand, the (dis)organization strand, the social psychology strand, and the action research strand used especially within social work. Each of these strands prioritized different methodological approaches, theoretical understandings, and outcomes of research, but common to all has been an intense interest in qualitative empirical work. Some of the most prominent classic and today still-often-quoted studies conducted by Chicago sociologists during the early years were Harvey W. Zorbaugh’s The Gold Coast and the Slum (1929), Clifford R. Shaw’s The Jack-Roller (1930), Paul G. Cressey’s The Taxi-Dance Hall (1932), and The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920) by William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki. Common to these otherwise methodologically different studies—using, respectively, participant observation, document analysis on letters and diaries, and interviewing and official statistics—were their interest in knowing what people do in particular situations and circumstances and uncovering the types of activities often taking place on the outskirts of society: deviance, crime, subcultures, and the like. In the first half of the 20th century, Chicago sociology thus functioned as a pioneer in promoting a distinctly qualitative mentality that was later superseded by other institutions (Harvard and Columbia) and other methodological preferences but today remains a vital force in American sociology.

Building on the insights from the early Chicago school of sociology (often referred to as the first generation of Chicago sociology ), several sociologists and social anthropologists—some of whom were themselves students of the early Chicagoans—during the 1940s and onward began to develop the idea of symbolic interactionism , sometimes more broadly described as interactionism . What began as a distinctly North American project later spread to the European continent. Some of the early proponents of symbolic interactionist social science with a strong emphasis on qualitative methods were Charles H. Cooley, Everett C. Hughes, Erving Goffman, Howard S. Becker, Herbert Blumer, and Norman K. Denzin—with Blumer responsible for originally coining the term symbolic interactionism , which he admitted was a “barbarous neologism” (Blumer, 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism often refers to the social philosophy of George Herbert Mead as the founding perspective, which was later developed, refined, and sociologized by others. Mead was a central force in the development of pragmatism. Symbolic interactionism is based on an understanding of social life in which human beings are seen as active, creative, and capable of communicating their definitions of situations and meanings to others. According to Blumer, there are three central tenets of symbolic interactionism: (a) humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them, (b) the meaning of such things is derived from or arises out of the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows, and (c) these meanings are handled in and modified through an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters (Blumer, 1969 , p. 2). Symbolic interactionists are concerned with how humans create meaning in their everyday lives and in how, as the term symbolic interaction indicates, this meaning is created and carved out through interaction with others and by use of various symbols to communicate meaning. As Blumer stated on the methodological stance of symbolic interactionism,

Symbolic interactionism is a down-to-earth approach to the scientific study of human group life and human conduct. Its empirical world is the natural world of such groups and conduct. It lodges its problems in this natural world, conducts its studies in it, and derives its interpretations from such naturalistic studies. If it wishes to study religious cult behavior it will go to actual religious cults and observe them carefully as they carry on their lives. If it wishes to study social movements it will trace carefully the career, the history, and the life experiences of actual movements. If it wishes to study drug use among adolescents it will go to the actual life of adolescents to observe and analyze such use. And similarly with respect to other matters that engage its attention. Its methodological stance, accordingly, is that of direct examination of the empirical social world. (Blumer, 1969 , p. 47)

Blumer argued for the development of sensitizing concepts —as opposed to definitive concepts —to capture social life theoretically; such concepts “[give] the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances” (Blumer, 1954 , p. 7). Symbolic interactionism does, per definition, not privilege any specific methods or research procedures—anything capable of capturing human meaning making through symbolic interaction in everyday life and capable of providing sensitizing concepts will do. However, historically, because of its close association with Chicago sociology, symbolic interactionists have primarily worked with a variety of qualitative methods and used them to discover, represent, and analyze the meaning-making processes involved in human interaction in a variety of contexts. Although a branch of symbolic interactionism under the auspices of Manford Kuhn began to develop at the University of Iowa (the Iowa school, as opposed to the Chicago school of Blumer and others) that prioritized more positivistic aspirations and used quantitative methods and experimental research designs, symbolic interactionism is to a large degree associated specifically with qualitative research, privileging the careful observation (and particularly participant observation) of social life in concrete and often naturally occurring circumstances (Manis & Meltzer, 1978 ). Today, symbolic interactionism is still very much alive and kicking—through conferences, book series, and a journal devoted to studies in symbolic interaction—and is an active part of American sociology and elsewhere, although the originality and initially provocative ideas of the pioneering protagonists of symbolic interactionism have gradually waned throughout the years.

One of the main proponents of interactionism was Erving Goffman, who throughout his career, which began at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s, gradually developed a perspective to study the minutiae of social life that remains one of the most quoted and used within contemporary social research. Goffman in many ways personified qualitative social science in the mid-20th century because of his particular topics of interest as well as his specific means of investigating them. Goffman’s main preoccupation throughout his career was to tease out the many miniscule and often overlooked rituals, norms, and behavioral expectations of the social situations of face-to-face interaction between people in public and private places—something that at the time was often regarded with widespread skepticism by more rigorously oriented social researchers. This was indeed a time when the center of intellectual development and priority within the social sciences on the American continent had gradually shifted from the University of Chicago in the earlier parts of the 20th century to Harvard University and Columbia University at mid-century with a concomitant shift from qualitative and particularly ethnographic methods to much more experimental, quantitative, and statistical methods. Not surprisingly, Goffman is often described as a maverick with his impressionistic and to some extent obscure approach to research methodology and ways of reporting his findings. Like one of his main sources of inspiration, Georg Simmel, Goffman keenly used the essay as a privileged means of communicating research findings, just as other literary devices such as sarcasm, irony, and metaphors were part and parcel of his methodological toolbox. Goffman was particularly critical of the use of many of the methods prevalent and valorized in sociology at his time. For instance, against the preference for statistical variable analysis and the privilege of quantitative methodology, he once stated,

The variables that emerge tend to be creatures of research designs that have no substance outside the room in which the apparatus and subjects are located, except perhaps briefly when a replication or a continuity is performed under sympathetic auspices and a full moon. Concepts are designed on the run in order to get on with setting things up so that trials can be performed and the effects of controlled variation of some kind or another measured. The work begins with the sentence “we hypothesize that …,” goes on from there to a full discussion of the biases and limits of the proposed design, reasons why these aren’t nullifying, and culminates in an appreciable number of satisfyingly significant correlations tending to confirm some of the hypotheses. As though the uncovering of social life were that simple. Fields of naturalistic study have not been uncovered through these methods. Concepts have not emerged that re-ordered our view of social activity. Understanding of ordinary behavior has not accumulated; distance has. (Goffman, 1971 , pp. 20–21)

Instead, Goffman opted for an unmistakable and distinctive qualitative research strategy aimed at charting the contours and contents of the all too ordinary and ever-present but nevertheless scientifically neglected events of everyday life. His work was characterized by an apparent methodological looseness that consciously and stylistically downplayed the importance of his own findings, but covered over the fact that his work revealed heretofore empirically uncharted territory. Many of the titles of his books thus contained consciously diminutive subtitles such as “reports,” “essays,” or “microstudies” that gave the impression, however mistaken, that it should not be taken too seriously. Goffman willingly admitted the following about what others might have regarded as a dubious research strategy:

Obviously, many of these data are of doubtful worth, and my interpretations—especially some of them—may certainly be questionable, but I assume that a loose speculative approach to a fundamental area of conduct is better than a rigorous blindness to it. (Goffman 1963 , p. 4)

In his work, Goffman relied heavily on all sorts of empirical material. He conducted interviews with housewives; he explored an island community through in-depth ethnography; he investigated the trials and tribulations of patient life at a psychiatric institution by way of covert participant observation; he performed the role as a dealer in a Las Vegas casino to document and tease out the gambling dimensions of human interaction; he listened to, recorded, and analyzed radio programs; and he more or less freely used any kind of qualitative technique, official and unofficial, to access the bountiful richness of social life. Despite his reliance on a varied selection of empirical input (or what he termed “slices of social life”), throughout his career, Goffman gradually developed and refined a unique research methodology by way of various metaphors intended to capture and highlight specific features of everyday life interaction. Goffman’s perspective on qualitative research therefore is often referred to as dramaturgy because his main and most popular metaphor was the theatrical analogy in which he—in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life —in detail described social interaction as if it was a performance made by actors on a scene (Goffman, 1959 ).

However, Goffman’s metaphorical cornucopia was much more than mere dramaturgy. He also invented and refined other metaphorical schemas: the ritual metaphor (looking at social life as if it was one big ceremonial event), the game metaphor (investigating social life as if it was inhabited by conmen and spies), and the frame metaphor (concerned with showing how people always work toward defining and framing social situations to make them meaningful and understandable). All these different metaphors concentrated on the same subject matter—patterns of human interaction, or, put another way, social life at the micro level—and each metaphor spawned a spectacular number of analytical terms and sensitizing concepts, many of which today are household concepts in the social sciences (just think of stigma, impression management, labeling , or framing ). Moreover, they served as useful devices in which to embed the aforementioned varied empirical material, thereby giving it shape, meaning, and substance. Goffman’s perspective later inspired new generations of sociologists in particular and qualitative researchers in general who have used him and his original methodology and colorful concepts to study a variety of conventional as well as new empirical domains such as tourist photography, mobile phone communication, and advertising (see, e.g., Jacobsen, 2010 ).

Ethnomethodology is another important tradition in the internal history of qualitative research that simultaneously builds on and extends the perspective provided by pragmatism, interactionism, and the dramaturgical work of Goffman. Like Goffman, ethnomethodologists take an interest in studying and unveiling the most miniscule realm of human interaction, and they rely on the collection of empirical data from a variety of sources in the development of their situationally oriented sociology. Ethnomethodology was initially a project masterminded by the American sociologist Harold Garfinkel, who in Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) outlined the concern of ethnomethodology as the study of the “routine actions” and the often-unnoticed methods of meaning making used by people in everyday settings (hence the term ethnomethodology , meaning “folk methods”). These routine activities and the continuously sense-making endeavors were part and parcel of the quotidian domain of everyday life (described by Garfinkel, in the characteristically obscure ethnomethodological terminology, as the “immortal ordinary society”) that rest on common-sense knowledge and practical rationality. Inspired by the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schütz as well as to some extent the functionalism of Talcott Parsons, Garfinkel concerned himself with a classic question in sociology: How is social order possible? But instead of proposing abstract or philosophical answers to this question or proposing “normative force” as the main arbiter between people, Garfinkel—as a kind of “phenomenological empiricism” (Heap, 1980 )—set out empirically to discover and document what people do when they encounter each other. True to the general pragmatist and interactionist perspective, ethnomethodologists rely on an image of human actors as knowledgeable individuals who, through such activities as indexicality , the etcetera principle , and accounts , in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s terminology, “know how to go on.” Social reality and social order are therefore not static or pregiven—rather, they are the active outcome or “accomplishment” of actors’ local meaning making amid sometimes bewildering, confusing, and chaotic situations. As Garfinkel stated on the purpose and procedures of ethnomethodology, phrased in typical tortuous ethnomethodological wording,

Ethnomethodological studies analyze everyday activities as members’ methods for making those same activities visibly-rational-and-reportable-for-all-practical-purposes, i.e. “accountable,” as organizations of commonplace everyday activities. The reflexivity of that phenomenon is a singular feature of practical actions, of practical circumstances, of common sense knowledge of social structures, and of practical sociological reasoning.… I use the term “ethnomethodology” to refer to the investigation of the rational properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions as contingent ongoing accomplishments of organized artful practices of everyday life. (Garfinkel, 1967 , pp. vii, 11)

According to ethnomethodologists, there are many methods available to tease out the situational and emerging order of social life that is based on members’ methods for making activities meaningful. Ethnomethodology is, however, predominantly a qualitative tradition that uses typical qualitative methods such as interviews and observation strategies for discovering and documenting what goes on when people encounter everyday life, but they also like to provoke our ingrained knowledge of what is going on. Thus, in classic Durkheimian-inspired fashion, one particularly opportune ethnomethodological way to find out what the norms and rules of social life really are and how they work is to break them. For example, Garfinkel invented the breaching experiments aimed at provoking a sense of disorder in the otherwise orderly everyday domain to see what people do to restore the lost sense of order. Of these breaching experiments or incongruence procedures —which Garfinkel asked his students to perform—he wrote,

Procedurally it is my preference to start with familiar scenes and ask what can be done to make trouble. The operations that one would have to perform in order to multiply the senseless features of perceived environments; to produce and sustain bewilderment, consternation and confusion; to produce the socially structured affects of anxiety, shame, guilt and indignation; and to produce disorganized interaction should tell us something about how the structures of everyday activities are ordinarily and routinely produced and maintained. (Garfinkel, 1967 , pp. 37–38)

Garfinkel, his colleagues, and students throughout the years performed a range of interesting studies—of courtroom interaction, jurors’ deliberations, doctors’ clinical practices, transsexuals’ attempts at “passing” in everyday life, piano players’ development of skills and style, medical staffs’ pronunciation of patients’ deaths, police officers’ craft of peace keeping, pilots’ conversation in the cockpit—aimed at finding out how everyday life (and particularly work situations) is “ordinarily and routinely produced and maintained” (Garfinkel, 1967 , p. 38) by using not only breaching experiments, but also less provocative methods. Later, ethnomethodology bifurcated into a conversation analysis strand on the one hand and what has been termed conventional ethnographical ethnomethodology on the other. Common to both strands has been a concern with uncovering the most meticulous aspects of human interaction—nonverbal and verbal. Just as Garfinkel studied the natural patterns of interaction in natural settings (the living room, the courtroom, the clinic, or elsewhere), so conversation analysts studied natural language (but also professional jargon) as used by people in ordinary circumstances. For instance, conversation analysts, such as Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff, intimately studied and analyzed the minutiae of turn-takings, categorizations, and sequences of verbal communication to see how people, through the use of language, create meaning and a coherent sense of what is going on. Characteristic of both strands of ethnomethodology is the strong reliance on qualitative research methods aimed at capturing and describing in detail the situational and emerging character of social order. In fact, ethnomethodologists strongly oppose positivistic research procedures aimed at producing universal “truths” or uncovering “general laws” about society and instead opt for a much more mundane approach to studying the locally produced orders and thoroughly episodic and situational character of social life (see, e.g., Cicourel, 1964 ). In a typical provocative respecification of Schütz’s classic dictum, Garfinkel thus suggested that we are all sociologists, because we constantly search for meaning. The means and methods of inquiry of professional sociologists are thus not all that different from the various ways ordinary people in everyday life observe, inquire, or talk to one another. This is a principle shared with the hermeneutic strand, which was addressed earlier.

Most of the North American traditions mentioned here can be covered by the label of creative sociologies (Morris, 1977 ), first, because they regard human beings as creative actors capable of and concerned with creating meaning in their lives, and second, because they emphasize creative qualitative approaches to capture and analyze those lives. As Monica B. Morris recapitulated on these creative sociologies,

The basic assumption underlying the “creative” approaches to sociology are: that human beings are not merely acted upon by social facts or social forces; that they are constantly shaping and “creating” their own social worlds in interaction with others; and that special methods are required for the study and understanding of these uniquely human processes. (Morris, 1977 , p. 8)

These “special methods” have predominantly been varieties of qualitative methods. Common to most of the North American creative sociologies is also a distinct microsociological orientation aimed at mapping out and analyzing the distinctly quotidian dimensions of social life and society. Besides the various traditions that we have chosen to delineate as part of the internal story of qualitative research, we can also mention the important insights from social semiotics, existentialism, critical everyday life sociology, cultural studies, sociology of emotions, interpretive interactionism, and more recently actor-network theory, which, however, will not be presented here.

A final tradition that can be mentioned, but that we will not analyze in detail, is the tradition originating with structuralism in the first half of the 20th century—the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the structural anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss, for example, which eventually developed into poststructuralism in the latter half of the century in the hands of figures such as Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and historian of ideas, who is among the most referenced authors in the social sciences as a whole. Structuralism was based on the idea that language is a system of signs whose meaning is determined by the formal relations between the signs (and not with reference to “the world”), and poststructuralism pushed this idea further by arguing that the system is constantly moving and in flux, which is why, as Jacques Derrida (the leading exponent of deconstruction) would say, meaning is endlessly “deferred.” In relation to qualitative research, we should say that Foucault (and to a lesser extent Derrida) was a significant inspiration for many forms of discourse analysis, which today exist in many variants. One variant is heavily inspired by Foucault and an awareness of power relations in social worlds (e.g., Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2008 ), while discursive psychology, as another variant, is not closely associated with Foucault or poststructuralism, but originates in the aforementioned ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (Sacks, Schlegoff), which was mentioned earlier (see Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori, 2011 ).

Ethnography

Before concluding this internal history, it is appropriate to note the early trade of anthropological and sociological ethnography, which cuts across the philosophical paradigms discussed previously. In anthropology, Bronislaw Malinowski, who held the first chair in social anthropology at the London School of Economics, is, together with Franz Boas, one of the founders of American cultural anthropology, considered a pioneer of ethnographic fieldwork. Contrary to the armchair anthropology and “anthropology of the verandah” conducted by earlier members of the discipline, and thus in a situation in which there was practically no professional discourse on fieldwork practice and experiences, Malinowski insisted on and practiced fieldwork methods of the kind that are performed by today’s ethnographers. Conducting his famous study of the culture of the Trobriand Islanders, he stayed and lived among the natives for a period of almost 3 years. Inspired partly by psychologist Wilhelm Wundt, Malinowski conceptualized culture as a kind of toolbox containing the specific tools and means that people use to satisfy their needs. This functionalistic understanding had certain methodological implications. To obtain an adequate understanding of the culture under scrutiny and the functional meaning of its various elements, Malinowski introduced at least three important principles that still appear among the most important requirements of anthropological fieldwork. First, the researcher should live in the community and among the people who are being studied; second, the researcher should learn the specific language of the community and not rely on interpreters, who might add a distance between researcher and community; third, researchers should participate and observe at the same time (participant observation) (Kristiansen & Krogstrup, 2012 ).

In contemporary textbooks on anthropological fieldwork methods, Malinowski’s study among the Trobriand Islanders is mentioned as a paradigm example, and generations of anthropological scholars have conducted fieldwork employing the principles laid out by Malinowski in the first decades of the 20th century. And, as indicated earlier in this chapter, anthropological fieldwork methods have been embraced by scholars from many other social science disciplines, especially sociology. The important point to be learned here is not necessarily the specific principles of ethnographic research per se, but the idea that ethnographic fieldwork should be considered among the important roots of qualitative research and thus that the development of ethnographic fieldwork by pioneers such as Malinowski and Boas in anthropology and Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess, and Nels Anderson in (Chicago) sociology was triggered by a conception of the world as culturally pluralistic and diversified, which in turn called for the development and refinement of methods and procedures suited for grasping pluralities of the contemporary social world.

The Marginalizing History of Qualitative Research

Following this tour de force through the internal history of qualitative research focusing on intellectual forerunners, theoretical paradigms, and methodological developments, let us turn to another way of describing the rise of qualitative research. It is difficult to understand current discussions in qualitative journals and handbooks without taking into account a widespread experience of not only studying the marginalized (something qualitative researchers often take pride in doing), but also qualitative researchers themselves being marginalized as a research community. Several decades ago, Fritz Machlup ( 1956 ) insisted that the social sciences as a whole suffered from an inferiority complex because the knowledge they could provide lacked the accuracy, lawlike character, value freedom, and rigor of “real” science (such as natural science). Although this might be nothing less than a caricature of the social sciences in general and qualitative research in particular, perhaps qualitative sociologists, in this respect, may have suffered from an even more strongly felt inferiority complex than, for example, their colleagues working with statistics, surveys, or quantitative data analysis because qualitative sociology—almost per definition—has been seen by others and sometimes also by its own proponents as being opposed to the principles of “real science.” As Stephen Jay Gould once asked, “Why do we downgrade … integrative and qualitative ability, while we exalt analytical and quantitative achievement? Is one better, harder, more important than the other?” (Gould, as cited in Peshkin, 1993 , p. 23). There is little doubt that during the decades of the mid-20th century, qualitative research lived a rather shadowy and marginalized existence and was regarded with some suspicion (Mottier, 2005 ). These were the decades of the orthodox consensus (Giddens, 1976 ) within the social sciences, relying heavily on positivistic research methods, a behaviorist image of humans, and a general functionalist theoretical foundation. Only later did we witness a revival or renaissance of qualitative research (Gobo, 2005 ). However, there is also little doubt that some qualitative researchers—for example, Goffman—consciously sought out such a marginalized position vis-à-vis prevailing positivistic research methods that in many ways not only gradually helped change the game regarding the validity or applicability of certain research methods, but also made some qualitative researchers almost immune to critique from colleagues working within more quantitative or statistical traditions. As reported by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, “qualitative researchers are called journalists or soft scientists. Their work is termed unscientific or only exploratory or subjective. It is called criticism, and not theory, or it is interpreted politically, as a disguised version of Marxism or secular humanism” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011 , p. 7). While there is some truth to this, we believe that much of the marginalization history of qualitative research is based on a myth. For example, the classical positivists, as Michell ( 2003 ) demonstrated, were not against qualitative research, so when qualitative researchers distance themselves from positivism, they most often construct a straw man and rarely, if ever, go back and read what early positivists such as Comte, Schlick, or Carnap had to say about research and human experience.

Brinkmann and Kvale ( 2015 ) even asked if the time has come to rehabilitate the classical positivists, perhaps for qualitative researchers to counter the marginality myth. It is noteworthy that Auguste Comte (1798–1857) was responsible for founding both positivist philosophy and the science of sociology. His positivist philosophy reacted against religious dogma and metaphysical speculation and advocated a return to observable data. Émile Durkheim was another early sociologist who was influenced by positivist sociology and gave penetrating qualitative analyses of social phenomena. Positivism had in general a significant influence on culture and the arts of the 19th century, inspiring a move from mythological and aristocratic themes to a new realism, depicting in detail the lives of workers and the bourgeoisie (for some of this history, particularly in the British context, see Dale, 1989 ). In histories of music, Bizet’s opera Carmen , featuring the lives of cigarette smugglers and toreadors, has been depicted as inspired by positivism, and Flaubert’s realistic descriptions of the life of Madame Bovary can likewise be considered a positivist novel. Impressionist paintings sticking to the immediate sense impressions, in particular the sense data of pointillism, also drew inspiration from positivism. The founder of phenomenological philosophy, Husserl, was even led to state that if positivism means being faithful to the phenomena, then we, the phenomenologists, are the true positivists!

It is no doubt true that many qualitative researchers have felt marginalized because of what they feel is a threat from the positivist philosophy of science. But if one goes back to Comte, and even to 20th-century “logical positivists” like Carnap and Schlick, one finds a surprisingly great methodological tolerance instead of the oft-insinuated hostility toward qualitative methods (Michell, 2003 ). The threat to qualitative methods has come not from a philosophy of science, but from research bureaucracies and funding agencies, witnessed, for example, in the recent movement toward “evidence-based practice” in the professions, which impend on the possibilities of conducting qualitative studies. As we will argue in the next section with reference to Latour ( 2000 ), it seems clear that the natural sciences are full of qualitative studies, which is further indication that qualitative researchers have no reason to feel inferior or marginalized in relation to their peers, who employ methods normally associated with the natural sciences.

The Repressed History of Qualitative Research

As we have seen in the internal history of qualitative research, in some disciplines such as sociology, qualitative approaches have been “out in the open” for decades and remain so today. However, for other disciplines the situation has been quite different, and it is this that we wish to highlight by briefly telling what we call the repressed history of qualitative research. This analysis pertains to psychology in particular, but it may also be relevant for other disciplines. Psychology was born as a science, it is said, in 1879 when Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychological laboratory in Leipzig. Wundt then began to conduct psychological experiments, but he also inaugurated the tradition of Völkerpsychologie , a cultural-historical approach of studying human life through customs, myths, and symbols, somewhat along the lines suggested by Dilthey in the hermeneutic tradition addressed previously. So Wundt initiated both a tradition of experimental psychology, which has since become the mainstream approach, using quantitative measures, and a long qualitative tradition in psychology. The qualitative tradition, however, has been forgotten by the official journals and handbooks of psychology to an extent that makes it resemble repression.

The case is that many “founding fathers” in psychology who today are not particularly associated with qualitative research in fact based their work on exactly that. It has likely been seen as embarrassing to textbook writers to include such figures as Freud and Piaget among qualitative researchers, since qualitative research has not figured among the respectable methods of the science of psychology. Psychology has been described by Sigmund Koch as unique among the sciences in having decided on its methods before defining its subject matter (see Robinson, 2001 ). Psychology has had, as its subject matter, something almost as elusive as the soul (i.e., the mind, which is an entity that psychologists have never been able to agree on). It has been defined as inner experience, outer behavior, information processing, brain functioning, a social construction, and many other things. But instead of agreeing on the subject matter of their discipline, the majority of psychologists have, since the mid-20th century, constructed their science as a science of numbers in an attempt to emulate the natural sciences. There is something like a “physics envy” running through the history of psychology and related disciplines, which has implied an exorcism of qualitative research. The reader can try for him- or herself to locate a standard textbook from psychology and check whether qualitative research is mentioned. The chance is very high that qualitative methods are not mentioned at all. Bruno Latour, an anthropologist who has entered into and observed research behavior in natural science laboratories, concludes laconically, “The imitation of the natural sciences by the social sciences has so far been a comedy of errors” (Latour, 2000 , p.14). It is a comedy of errors chiefly because the natural sciences do not look at all like it is imagined in psychology and the social sciences. The natural sciences like physics, chemistry, biology, zoology, and geology are built not around statistics, but often around careful qualitative descriptions of their subject matters. It can even be argued that such fields as paleontology rest on interpretative methods (Rorty, 1982 ). Anatomy and physiology are qualitative disciplines in large parts, describing the workings of the body, and it can—without stretching the concept too far—be argued that Darwin was a qualitative researcher, adept at observing and interpreting the natural world in its qualitative transformations.

If this analysis is valid, it means that qualitative research in psychology—as in most, if not all, human and social sciences—looks much more like natural science than is normally imagined and is much older than usually recognized. Here we can mention not just Wundt’s cultural psychology, but also William James’s study of religious experience, Freud’s investigations of dreams and his clinical method more broadly, Gestalt psychologists’ research on perception, Piaget’s interviews with children, Bartlett’s studies of remembering, and Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of the body. These are routinely addressed in psychological textbooks—after all, they have all been formative of the discipline—but their qualitative research methods are almost always neglected or repressed. The history of interviewing as a qualitative research method is closely connected to the history of psychology (especially in its clinical and therapeutic variants), and some of this history is told in this book’s chapter on qualitative interviewing. Suffice it here to say that interviewing became a method in the human and social sciences with Freud’s psychoanalysis around 1900, and we refer the reader to the interview chapter for the details. Although Freud’s status as a theorist of the mind has been much debated in recent years, perhaps his main contribution—simultaneously using the conversation as a knowledge-producing instrument and a “talking cure”—remains as relevant as ever. This makes it even stranger that Freud and the other psychological pioneers have been repressed as qualitative psychologists from the mainstream of the discipline. It is hard to imagine that psychology and similar sciences could have achieved their relatively high impact on society had they not employed what we call qualitative methods to zoom in on significant aspects of human and social life.

The Social History of Qualitative Research

Like all forms of social science, qualitative research exists in social, economic, cultural, and historical contexts and must be understood in relation to these contexts. Taking this as a point of departure, it makes good sense that qualitative research experienced a renaissance from the late 1960s onward. On the basis of a somewhat Western-biased or ethnocentric worldview, the 1960s can be considered a starting point for some major changes in life forms, social institutions, and the whole social fabric of society. As Gordana Jovanovic ( 2011 ) argued, the legitimacy of some of the apparently solid social institutions such as the marriage and the family were questioned, and a more pluralistic and differentiated picture began to appear in terms of social groups, and new social movements making claims in favor of the environment, global peace, and women’s and student’s rights emerged. Together with the already existing critique of positivism and a universal rational method put forward by scholars such as Paul K. Feyerabend ( 1975 ), these changes, Jovanovic argued, spurred the belief that traditional natural science and causally oriented research models were inadequate in terms of studying and understanding these new forms of social life. Therefore, there was a need to develop approaches that could uncover the meanings and nature of the unexpected and apparently provocative, disturbing, and oppositional social phenomena:

In these altered social circumstances, in which views concerning both science and the position of science had changed, it became possible to pose different research questions, to shift the focus of research interests, to redefine the research situation and the role of its participants—in a word, conditions were created for what histories of qualitative methods usually describe as the “renaissance” of qualitative research. (Jovanovic, 2011 , p. 18)

In other words, changes in life forms, worldviews, and cultural practices were constituent of the reemergence of qualitative research on the scientific scene in the 1960s and 1970s. And as we have touched on earlier in this chapter (see the section “The Internal History of Qualitative Research”), to some extent this reemergence of qualitative research (at least among some of the early Chicagoans) has been associated with emancipation and with a practical use of social and human science knowledge in favor of underprivileged groups in society. Such history writing, however, unveils only one specific aspect of the interconnectedness of qualitative research on the one hand and the social fabric on the other.

The social history of qualitative research has not yet been written, but it should also approach its development in another way, namely, as deeply related to management and industrial organizations (cf. the famous Hawthorne study that involved interviews with thousands of workers with the aim of increasing productivity) and also advertisements and commercial research (focus groups, consumer interviews, etc.). From a Foucauldian perspective, qualitative research did not just spring from the countercultural and emancipatory movements of the 1960s and 1970s but may also have become part of the soft and hidden forms of power exertion in the confessional “interview society” (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997 ), and—contrary to its self-understanding—qualitative research may often function as a tool in the hands of the powerful (cf. the use of focus groups for marketing and political purposes).

As discussed by Brinkmann and Kvale ( 2005 ), the focus of the economies of Western societies has shifted from efficient production of goods to customers’ consumption of the goods produced. What is important is no longer to make products as stable and unfailing as possible, but rather to make markets by influencing buyers through marketing. Henry Ford is supposed to have said that customers could get the Model T in any color they wanted, as long as they preferred black, but in today’s post-Fordist economy, such standardization is clearly outdated. What is important today is not just the quality of the product, but also, especially, its style, the story behind it, the experiences it generates, and what it reveals about the owner’s self—in short, its hermeneutic qualities. Products are sold with inbuilt planned obsolescence, and advertisements work to change customers and construct their desires continually for new products to find new markets. Softer, more concealed forms of power gradually replace the bureaucratic structures of industrial society with its visible hierarchies and governance through reward and punishment.

To begin writing the recent social history of qualitative research, we may note how, in consumer society, soft qualitative research has been added to the repertoire of social science methodologies, often superseding the bureaucratic forms of data collection in standardized surveys and quantitative experiments. While a textbook on quantitative methodology may read like a manual for administrators and engineers, qualitative guidebooks read more like manuals for personnel counselors and advertisers, stressing emotions, empathy, and relationships. Although qualitative methods are often pictured as progressive and even emancipatory, we should not overlook the immersion of these methods in a consumer society, with its sensitivity toward experiences, images, feelings, and lifestyles of the consumers (Kvale, 2008 ). The qualitative interview, for example, provides important knowledge for manipulating consumers’ desires and behavior through psychologically sophisticated advertising. One of the most significant methods of marketing in consumer society is—not surprisingly—qualitative market research. Almost 2 decades ago, it already accounted for $2 billion to $3 billion worldwide (Imms & Ereaut, 2002 ), and according to one estimate, 5% of all British adults have taken part in market research focus groups. Although a major part of qualitative interviewing today takes place within market research, the extensive use of qualitative research interviews for consumer manipulation is hardly taken into account in the many discussions of qualitative research and its emancipatory nature.

Concluding the sketchy social history of qualitative research, we may return to the sociology department at the University of Chicago, which has been mentioned already as an important institution in terms of nurturing qualitative research in a variety of forms from the late 1920s. We have not, however, reflected on the sociohistorical conditions that might explain why the emergence of qualitative research approaches emerged exactly here at this specific time. In our view, there seem to be at least two answers to this admittedly complex question. First, the sociology department was initially uniquely crowded with intellectuals who were influenced by pragmatic and interactionist thought, by Continental (particularly German) thinking stressing description and understanding before causal explanation, and also by journalism, ecology models, and essayistic writing. At the same time, there was a strong spirit of wanting to link sociological research with engagement in social issues and social reform (Abbott, 1999 ; Bulmer, 1984 ). Second, the early Chicagoans’ initial interest in immigrants, patterns of urban development, crime, and the general social dynamics of city life stimulated scholars such as Thomas, Znaniecki, Park, and Burgess to develop and employ research strategies that were different from the quantitative ones (see Jørgensen & Smith, 2009 ). One might say that the study of the complexity of new city life craved methodological considerations and research strategies that made the qualitative perspective come in handy. Thus, to understand and grasp the cultural complexities of immigrant communities, the social worlds of marginalized people, and the segmentation of cities in distinctive zones, these researchers were somehow bound to employ and advance qualitative methods and techniques such as biographical research, fieldwork, and mapping.

The Technological History of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research indeed depends on human beings observing, interacting with, and talking to each other, but its history has also been driven by technological developments. It is difficult to imagine qualitative research as we know it today without the invention of the portable tape recorder, and later, digital recording devices, and also the whole range of software that enables computer-assisted analyses of qualitative materials. The development of these technologies has created new opportunities and possibilities for researchers in regard to collecting, managing, and analyzing qualitative data (Schwandt, 2001 , p. 27). However, not only have qualitative researchers adopted and made direct use of different technological devices in the research process, but also technological advances have spurred new qualitative approaches and methods. The technological history of qualitative research, we contend, is thus a history of researchers making use of technological artifacts not specifically or purposely developed for qualitative research, of revising their methods in response to technological innovation, and of the development of technologies specifically designed for research purposes. We briefly summarize this technological history by examining the ways that technological innovations have transformed and developed both the collection and the analysis of qualitative data.

Data Collection

Just as technological inventions have affected the general history of humanity in a variety of ways, technological innovations have triggered a number of major changes or shifts in the history of qualitative research and methodology. The first, and admittedly trivial, technologically driven shift was brought about by advances in transportation technology. In the very early days of anthropology (i.e., before Malinowski’s groundbreaking work in the Trobriand Islands), anthropologists typically relied on secondhand materials gathered by others, such as documents, travel logs, and reports written by colonial officials, missionaries, participants in scientific expeditions, or traveling salesmen. Unsurprisingly, this production of knowledge about cultures and social groups (later known as armchair research ) without ever meeting or interacting with them was later criticized for lacking authenticity and thus for drawing conclusions on the basis of insufficient or inadequate data (Markle, West, & Rich, 2011 ). However, as transportation technology improved and made long-distance traveling easier and affordable, anthropologists began to travel around the globe and to practice what has become known as fieldwork, thus immersing themselves in the lives of the people under study, interacting with them, and taking part in their practices and producing data onsite. In some cases, these traveling scholars brought with them new technologies, such as travel typewriters, and typed field notes while staying in the field. At this early stage of qualitative research, qualitative researchers invested massive energy in recording data. Researchers conducting interviews or doing observations often made handwritten summaries of interviews or conversations or wrote detailed field notes in their notebooks. At this point, a great deal of the researcher’s work consisted of making records of his or her experiences in the field or simply producing data and making them storable.

This situation was dramatically changed by the invention and use of audio recorders. The introduction of these devices in the practice of qualitative research also constitutes a substantial methodological advance since they made it possible for researchers to collect and record information from observations or from interviews simultaneously. Being able to record information as an integrated part of the data-gathering process enabled researchers to collect larger piles of data and to dedicate more efforts to the process of analysis. Furthermore, the fact that researchers could record conversations with participants, have them transcribed, and thus be able to return to them as they actually appeared constituted a major methodological progress. The process of making transcripts, and the following reading and rereading, enabled researchers to familiarize themselves with the data in a completely new way (Gibbs, Friese, & Mangabeira, 2002 ). The making of transcripts gradually has become conceived of as an integral part of the qualitative research process since the intense listening to recordings makes the researcher aware of subtle and taken-for-granted dimensions in the participant’s talk that researchers without recordings “would routinely fail to notice, fail to remember, or be unable to record in a sufficient detail by taking hand-written notes as it happened” (Rapley, 2007 , p. 50).

In a somewhat similar way, photographic technology has had an impact on qualitative research. The use of photography as an aspect of qualitative research goes back to the early works of Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead ( 1942 ) and their photographic ethnography of Balinese character. Bateson and Mead’s photographic report has achieved landmark status among anthropologists and, although their innovative work was greeted with some puzzlement (Jacknis, 1988 ), the use of photographs has become popular not only within a special branch of anthropology but also among a much broader community of qualitative researchers working within the field of visual methods (see Collier & Collier, 1986 ; Harper, 2012 ; Pink, 2007 ).

Still another shift was brought about by video recording and analysis (Gibbs et al., 2002 ). Digital technologies have opened up new ways of collecting, managing, and analyzing qualitative data. The use of video recordings has been employed within a broad field of qualitative studies, and since it allows the researcher to reobserve situations over and over again and thus discover new facets and aspects of their structure and processes, this technology appears among the standard data-collecting techniques in qualitative research. The most recent qualitative methodological innovations have been catalyzed by the development of the Internet. Not only has the Internet made it possible to collect data in new ways, but also it has created new forms of sociability, which in turn have catalyzed the development of existing qualitative methods.

The e-interview represents one such example of how modern information and communication technology have spurred innovative data-collecting processes. e-Interviewing may be found in a variety of forms, but basically entails a researcher and a research participant (or a group of participants) communicating through a sequence of emails involving questions and answers. As such, e-interviewing appears similar to conventional email communication and thus is quite different from face-to-face interviewing, where interviewer and interviewee interact directly in a real-time social encounter. Obviously (and to some extent similar to telephone interviewing, which is another technologically facilitated data-collection technique), such Internet-based data collection has some advantages: It is cost-effective since it eliminates travel and transcription expenses, it makes it possible to interview people who would not have agreed to participate in a face-to-face interview, and it may provide opportunities for accessing data that would have been difficult to obtain through direct face-to-face interaction (Bampton & Cowton, 2002 ). Thus, some qualitative researchers, such as Holge-Hazelton ( 2002 ), have found that, on the one hand, in researching sensitive and personal topics using e-interviews, there was a remarkable lack of inhibition among participants because rapport was quite easy to establish. On the other hand, because it is a distanced, asynchronous form of interaction, the e-interview provides no access to the nonverbal and tacit signs that are highly valuable in terms of managing the interview process and thus in improving the quality of data collecting (Bampton & Cowton, 2002 ).

Whereas technological innovations and new devices have been adapted by social scientists, thereby facilitating the use of well-established research strategies and methods, technological inventions do also lead to or mediate new forms of social life, which in turn may call for a rethinking of common textbook methods. One illustrating example is found within ethnography. Traditional ethnographic techniques cover a variety of procedures that may assist researchers in their face-to-face dealings with people, be it individual human beings or groups of people. However, as more and more social interactions unfold on the Internet or are otherwise mediated by information technologies, ethnographers and other qualitative researchers have been urged to adapt their strategies to the nature of these rapidly developing online social worlds.

Robert V. Kozinets is a pioneer in the field of adapting traditional ethnography procedures (of entrée, collecting data, making valid interpretations, doing ethical research, and providing possibilities for participant’s feedback). Extending the strengths of ethnographic methods to series of qualitative studies of online communities, he coined the term netnography to grasp the special trade of ethnographic study on online communities. In the words of Kozinets ( 2002 , p. 62), this approach “is a new qualitative research methodology that adapts ethnographic research techniques to study the cultures and communities that are emerging through computer-mediated communications.” Netnography, then, exemplifies how technology affects the nature of social life and how, in turn, qualitative researchers adapt to new and emerging forms of sociability by rethinking and extending well-established techniques and procedures. Netnographies have been conducted in a variety of online communities to grasp their specific meanings and symbolisms. One recent example is O’Leary and Carroll’s study ( 2012 ) of online poker subcultures in which netnography proved to be a useful and cost-effective method of providing insight into the social ecosystem of online poker gamblers and specific attitudes pertaining to this community.

Data Analysis

Not long ago, management and analysis of qualitative data typically involved (and often still does) an overwhelming amount of paperwork. Qualitative researchers buried themselves in their handwritten field notes, interview transcripts, or other documents. Trawling systematically through their material, researchers marked chunks of data and organized these bites of data in more or less complicated index systems, drew models of emerging analytical patterns, discovered data that challenged the emerging conceptual framework, and ended up, in most cases, with a final report, dissertation, or research paper. For today’s qualitative researchers, this caricature lacks an important dimension: the computer, and often also various types of data analysis software.

As pointed out by Raymond Lee and Nigel Fielding ( 2004 ), the launch of the first generations of word-processing programs was a great help to most qualitative researchers. These programs made it possible to store, edit, systematize, and modify collected materials in a far more effective and less time-consuming way. Qualitative researchers no longer had to make large piles of photocopies in which chunks of text were marked or cut out and placed in separate holders since the new word-processing packages provided very useful searching, copying, cutting, and pasting facilities. Similarly, conventional database programs (such as Microsoft Access) found their way into the realm of qualitative research, supporting the analysis of interviews and other qualitative materials (Meyer, Gruppe, & Franz, 2002 ).

In the early 1980s, the first generation of qualitative analysis programs was introduced (Weitzman, 2000 , p. 804). These types of programs, which have later been referred to as computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS, Lee & Fielding, 1995 ), facilitated direct coding of the data and subsequent searches in the coded material. Later versions of these first generations of CAQDAS allowed for quick assessments of overlapping or interrelating concepts and retrieval of data on specific themes from participants with assigned specific attribute values (Lee & Fielding, 2004 ). Such facilities support the more sophisticated and conceptual work of qualitative research since they enable the systematic investigation of emergent patterns and relationships in the data. These later generations of programs that assist more complex and interpretive analytic tasks have been termed theory builders since they contain tools and procedures that support the development of theoretical schemes and conceptual frameworks. Some of these programs also support collaborative qualitative research processes, allowing members of a research team to merge their analytic work in an integrated project and, similarly, to assess quality measures such as intercoder reliability. Furthermore, some packages support the integration of various kinds of digitized qualitative data such as photographs, video recordings, and rich text files, and some also contain tools for coding not only in textual data, but also directly in digitized speech and video recordings.

The introduction of computer technology in the processes of collecting, managing, and analyzing qualitative data has triggered important discussions in the research community on the nature of qualitative research and on the limitations and potentials offered by these new technologies. A core issue in these debates has been the possible (and perhaps nonreflected) ways that technology impacts the practice of qualitative research and analysis (Buston, 1997 ). On the one hand, in terms of data analysis software, technological skeptics have expressed concern that most software packages stimulate a specific (code-based) analytic strategy (Seidel, 1991 )—that the widespread use of CAQDAS eventually may result in an unhappy homogenization and convergence toward a certain type of analysis and even toward a new kind of data management orthodoxy (Barry, 1998 ; Coffey, Holbrook, & Atkinson, 1996 ; Welsh, 2002 ); that use of computers and software packages creates a distance between researcher and data and prevents the researcher from immersing him- or herself in the data (Roberts & Wilson, 2002 ); and finally that many software packages are somewhat incompatible with the ambiguous nature of qualitative data and thereby pose a threat to the holistic nature of qualitative research (Kelle, 1995 ; Mason, 2002 ; Weaver & Atkinson, 1994 ). On the other hand, technological optimists (e.g., Richards & Richards, 1998 ) do not neglect the potential pitfalls of nonreflexive use of CAQDAS, but emphasize how software packages enable management and analysis of large pools of qualitative data and that CAQDAS provides procedures for rigorous and transparent analytic work and thus potentially for enhancing the quality of qualitative research. Similarly, optimists also argue that, although the quantitative tools in analysis software may be used recklessly, sensible use may provide the researcher with a quick and thought-stimulating overview of characteristic patterns or indicate possible relations or hypotheses to be explored. The powerful search engines at the heart of most CAQDAS packages are also effective tools for improving the validity of analysis, which is also the case concerning the visualizing or model-building facilities with direct data access. Although this somewhat exaggerated polarization between technological skeptics and optimists is grounded in the nature and specific features of the available software packages, the different positions often also reflect more fundamental differences in terms of qualitative methodology approaches. Researchers within the phenomenological tradition who emphasize the subjective understanding and interpretation of behavior and verbalizations often tend to view CAQDAS more negatively than qualitative researchers working within the paradigm of grounded theory, content analysis, or other approaches that may profit from the coding and quantification tools available in many programs (Berg, 2003 , p. 266).

From this technological history, it appears that technological advances have transformed and advanced key elements in the practice of qualitative research (i.e., collecting, managing, and analyzing data). Technological developments (sometimes carried out by qualitative researchers themselves in collaboration with technicians and computer engineers) have broadened the methodological repertoire of qualitative researchers and have brought about new ways of gathering, managing, and analyzing data. Thus, technological innovations have changed and transformed the practical tasks of qualitative research as well as its scope and potentials. As a result of technological development, qualitative researchers today spend less time recording and producing data than they did a few decades ago, just as new ways of working with and looking at data became possible with the launch of analysis software and as audio and video recordings enabled the researcher to store and return to situations as they originally appeared. The technological history of qualitative research thus reminds us that qualitative researchers continually reflect on and adjust their methods not only to fit the actual phenomenon under study, but also to fit a broader milieu of cultural factors such as technological innovations (Markle et al., 2011 ).

Concluding Thoughts about the Future

It would be no exaggeration to conclude that, during the past decades, the broad church of qualitative research has reached a strong position within the human and social sciences. As our six histories have suggested, social, cultural, material, intellectual, and technological changes have spurred the emergence of new qualitative methods and innovations of well-known and celebrated approaches. Furthermore, strong efforts to describe and delineate qualitative procedures and research guidelines (in textbooks and qualitative curricula at universities) within the variety of approaches from grounded theory, content analysis, interaction process analysis, discourse analysis, and others have contributed to the relative success and widespread acceptance of qualitative research as “real science” in the research community as well as in the public sphere. As qualitative researchers, we welcome this situation. However, it might be fruitful to consider the possible, often neglected side effect of this “scientification” of qualitative research. Many years ago, Valerie Janesick warned qualitative researchers against the pitfall that cultivating and outlining procedures of qualitative methods could result in researchers losing sight of the subject matter and thus gradually undermining the potential of qualitative research. Like others, she referred to this tendency as methodolatry that she designated

a combination of method and idolatry, to describe a preoccupation with selecting and defending methods to the exclusion of the actual substance of the story being told. Methodolatry is the slavish attachment and devotion to method that so often overtakes the discourse in the education and human service fields. (Janesick, 1994 , p. 215)

Whether methodolatry in the qualitative research community is interpreted as an expression of some sort of physics envy among qualitative researchers or as an adjustment of qualitative research to the public demand for evidence-based knowledge (which often is confused with positivist and experimental studies), the consequences of such qualitative methodological fetishism might be detrimental for qualitative research. Psychologist Kerry Chamberlain has discussed how privileging questions of method over all other important questions pertaining to the research process deprives qualitative research of its distinctive characteristics as a creative, flexible, interpretive enterprise with a strong critical potential. If qualitative research is confused with categorizing and illustrating talk, instead of interpreting and theorizing the contents of it, and if qualitative researchers uncritically adopt conceptions of validity and reliability from positivism and fail to acknowledge the ideological base of the trade, we will compromise essential aspects of our historical legacy (Chamberlain, 2000 ) and perhaps even the raison d’ être of qualitative research.

We make no claim that methodolatry is standard among qualitative researchers. However, we have registered that discussions of such tendencies have emerged within several subfields of qualitative research. Some (e.g., Steiner 2002 ) have even concluded that the majority of qualitative research could be characterized as scientistic because of its concern with generalizability, objectivity, and rationality. Others have used George Ritzer’s ( 2008 ) McDonaldization thesis to argue that we are witnessing a McDonaldization of qualitative research. According to Ritzer, the cultural process of McDonaldization is characterized by efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control—all of which seem to favor standardized methodologies in qualitative research. Nancarrow and colleagues concluded the following about the impact of McDonaldization on qualitative research:

Just as McWorld creates “a common world taste around common logos, advertising slogans, stars, songs, brand names, jingles and trademarks” [ … ], the qualitative research world also seems to be moving towards a common world taste for an instantly recognisable and acceptable research method that can be deployed fast. (Nancarrow, Vir, & Barker, 2005 , p. 297)

With this risk in mind, we find it appropriate to remind ourselves of the core values and characteristics of qualitative research. Privileging method over the subject matter of research and developing rigid methodological straitjackets will not bring qualitative research closer to “the royal road of scientificity” (Lather, 2005 , p. 12), but rather the opposite. Only by reminding ourselves of our historical legacy and embracing the unpredictable, flexible, and messy nature of qualitative research can we practice, develop, and fertilize our trade.

Taking a look into the future of qualitative research necessarily involves a reflection on the possible lines of development within the field of computer-assisted qualitative research. Since technological advances keep a steady pace and since qualitative researchers continuously seek out the potential of newly available research technologies, innovations that strengthen the nature and widen the scope of qualitative research are to be expected. In the early 2000s, it was still considered an open question whether the development of voice-recognition software could lead to computer-supported interview transcription (Flick, 2002 , p. 17). At present, however, some voice-recognition software packages have transcription modes and speech-to-text modes that support the transformation of (certain kinds) of talk into text. Although the speech-to-text software still needs some improvement to free research assistants or secretaries from the work of transcription, reaching this goal is not at the forefront of the innovative efforts put forward by the proponents of computer-facilitated qualitative research. The cutting-edge developments of CAQDAS seem to point in new and interesting directions. One emerging and promising field is the integration of geographical information systems with the use of CAQDAS. Qualitative researchers such as Fielding and Cisneros ( 2009 ) and Verd and Porcel ( 2012 ) described how data from a geographical information system could be integrated in software packages supporting qualitative analysis. Thus, Verd and Porcel applied a form of qualitative geographical information system in a study of an urban transformation project in the city of Barcelona to investigate the social production of urban space. And in addition to opening a completely new strand of qualitative urban research (or perhaps, more correctly, revitalizing the urban sociology of the early Chicagoans by adding new data and technologies) that stimulates a new form of sensitivity toward the spatial dimensions of the social world, such creative synthesis of geographical information system technology and CAQDAS has added new concepts to the vocabulary of qualitative research, such as geocoding or georeferencing, or “the type of information processing that consists in the geographical localization and placing of qualitative material such as photographs, field notes, text fragments of documents and any other information” (Verd & Porcel, 2012 , para. 14). The CAQDAS trend in qualitative research can be seen as being aligned with the scientistic push for standardization, but it can also be looked at in a more balanced way. Although uncritical use of CAQDAS admittedly might fuel processes of methodolatry (stimulating the technical side over the interpretive side), there still seems to be strong potential in using CAQDAS to strengthen the qualitative investigation of some forms of audiovisual data (such as video data) or data sources (geographical and spatial) that until recently have been used primarily by quantitative social researchers. The fruitful mixing of qualitative analysis software with seemingly nonqualitative data rests on the creative and imaginative work of qualitative researchers that dare challenge traditional conceptions such as the sharp demarcations of qualitative and quantitative research. This might be an example of a more general development related to the whole mixed methods movement.

Other contemporary qualitative researchers argue that we must move in the opposite direction of methodolatry. The traditions that are prevalent in the different editions of The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , edited by Denzin and Lincoln, favor a more political, even activist, attitude to qualitative research, which is based on ethical values of care and community (rather than validity and reliability) and employs aesthetic means (e.g., borrowed from literature and the arts) to favor social justice. Today, the tension between those on the one hand, who seek to use qualitative methods to do “normal science” (in a Kuhnian sense) and employ standardized formats to communicate their findings, and those on the other hand, who experiment with non- and even antimethodological approaches (e.g., drama, poetry, autoethnography), is central to the field of qualitative research. The time might have come to ask if there is anything that holds the many practices together that go by the name qualitative research—other than the name itself. Some scholars give a negative answer and go so far as to argue that we are—or should be—in a position of “post” qualitative research (St. Pierre, 2011 ), meaning that the term has lost its rhetorical force and simply freezes inquiry rather than setting our thinking free. Others (e.g., Hammersley, 2011 ) found that the current fragmentation and experimentation in qualitative research risks rendering qualitative research redundant in the eyes of society. A field with so much inner tension might not be taken seriously.

Our goal in this context is not to settle this discussion once and for all. As the historical contributions presented in this chapter demonstrate, qualitative research represents a range of rich and vibrant approaches to the study of human lives and social phenomena. As we have seen in this chapter, the term itself—qualitative research—is barely 100 years old, and we are confident that if the term is no longer useful, then researchers of the future will have to invent other concepts to designate the process of studying our social and personal worlds. That it is worthwhile and necessary to study ourselves as human beings, with all the qualitative characteristics of our experiences and actions, seems to be as true as ever. And the fact that the landscape of qualitative research is extremely variegated might not be too surprising given the complexities of the subject matter.

Abbott, A. ( 1999 ). Department and discipline: Chicago sociology at one hundred . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Arribas-Ayllon, M. , & Walkerdine, W. ( 2008 ). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 91–108). London, England: Sage.

Atkinson, P. , & Silverman, D. ( 1997 ). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self.   Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 304–325.

Bampton, R. , & Cowton, C. J. ( 2002 ). The e-interview.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs020295

Barry, C. A. ( 1998 ). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas/ti and Nudist compared.   Sociological Research Online, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/4.html

Bateson, G. , & Mead, M. ( 1942 ). The Balinese character: A photographic analysis . New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

Berg, B. L. ( 2003 ). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Blumer, H. ( 1954 ). What’s wrong with social theory?   American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2005 ). Human kinds and looping effects in psychology: Foucauldian and hermeneutic perspectives.   Theory & Psychology, 15, 769–791.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2018 ). Philosophies of qualitative research . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Brinkmann, S. , & Kvale, S. ( 2005 ). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research.   Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 157–181.

Brinkmann, S. , & Kvale, S. ( 2015 ). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bulmer, M. ( 1984 ). The Chicago school of sociology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Buston, K. ( 1997 ). NUD•IST in action: Its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people.   Sociological Research Online, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/3/6.html

Chamberlain, K. ( 2000 ). Methodolatry and qualitative health research.   Journal of Health Psychology, 5, 285–296.

Cicourel, A. V. ( 1964 ). Method and measurement in sociology . New York, NY: Free Press.

Coffey, A. , Holbrook, B. , & Atkinson, P. ( 1996 ). Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations.   Sociological Research Online, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/4.html

Collier, J., Jr. , & Collier, M. ( 1986 ). Visual anthropology. Photography as a research method . Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Dale, P. A. ( 1989 ). In pursuit of a scientific culture: Science, art, and society in the Victorian age . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2011 ). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. ( 1910 /1991). How we think . Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Dreyfus, H. ( 1991 ). Being-in-the-world—A commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Feyerabend, P. ( 1975 ). Against method . London, England: Verso.

Fielding, N. , & Cisneros, C. ( 2009 ). CAQDAS–GIS convergence: Toward a new integrated mixed research practice?   Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 349–370.

Flick, U. ( 2002 ). Qualitative research—state of the art.   Social Science Information, 41, 5–24.

Gadamer, H. G. ( 1960 /2000). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed. published 2000). New York, NY: Continuum.

Garfinkel, H. ( 1967 ). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.

Geertz, C. ( 1973 ). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. ( 2001 ). Social construction in context . London, England: Sage.

Gibbs, G. R. , Friese, S. , & Mangabeira, W. C. ( 2002 ). The use of new technology in qualitative research. Introduction to issue 3 (2) of FQS. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/847/1840

Giddens, A. ( 1976 ). New rules of sociological method . London, England: Hutchinson.

Giddens, A. ( 1993 ). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Giorgi, A. ( 1975 ). An application of phenomenological method in psychology. In A. Giorgi , C. Fischer , & E. Murray (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology II (pp. 82–103). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A. P. , & Giorgi, B. ( 2008 ). Phenomenological psychology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 165–178). London, England: Sage.

Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. ( 1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gobo, G. ( 2005 ). The renaissance of qualitative methods.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/5/12

Goffman, E. ( 1959 ). The presentation of self in everyday life . Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Goffman, E. ( 1963 ). Behavior in public places . New York, NY: Free Press.

Goffman, E. ( 1971 ). Relations in public . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hammersley, M. ( 2011 ). Methodology: Who needs it? London, England: Sage.

Harper, D. ( 2012 ). Visual sociology: An introduction . New York, NY: Routledge.

Heap, J. L. ( 1980 ). Description in ethnomethodology.   Human Studies, 3, 87–106.

Heidegger, M. ( 1927 /1962). Being and time . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Hempel, C. ( 1942 ). The function of general laws in history.   The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35–48.

Holge-Hazelton, B. ( 2002 ). The Internet: A new field for qualitative inquiry?   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0202156

Husserl, E. ( 1954 ). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die tranzendentale Phänomenologie . The Hague, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Imms, M. , & Ereaut, G. ( 2002 ). An introduction to qualitative market research . London, England: Sage.

Jacknis, I. ( 1988 ). Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in Bali: Their use of photography and film.   Cultural Anthropology, 3, 160–177.

Jackson, M. ( 1996 ). Introduction: Phenomenology, radical empiricism, and anthropological critique. In M. Jackson (Ed.), Things as they are: New directions in phenomenological anthropology (pp. 1–50). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Jacobsen, M. H. (Ed.). ( 2009 ). Encountering the everyday: An introduction to the sociologies of everyday life . London, England: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Jacobsen, M. H. (Ed.). ( 2010 ). The contemporary Goffman . London, England: Routledge.

James, W. ( 1907 ). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Janesick, V. J. ( 1994 ). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jørgensen, A. , & Smith, D. ( 2009 ). The Chicago school of sociology: Survival in the urban jungle. In M. H. Jacobsen (Ed.), Encountering the everyday: An introduction to the sociologies of the unnoticed (pp. 45–68). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jovanovic, G. ( 2011 ). Toward a social history of qualitative research.   History of the Human Sciences, 24, 1–27.

Karpatschof, B. ( 2010 ). Den kvalitative undersøgelsesforms særlige kvaliteter. [The particular qualities of qualitative inquiry]. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder [ Qualitative methods ] (pp. 409–428). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels.

Kelle, U. ( 1995 ). Introduction. An overview of computer-aided methods in qualitative research. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp. 1–17). London, England: Sage.

Kozinets, R. V. ( 2002 ). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities.   Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61–72.

Kristiansen, S. , & Krogstrup, H. K. ( 2012 ). Deltagende observation: Introduktion til en forskningsmetodik [Participant observation: Introduction to a research method] . Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzels.

Kvale, S. ( 2008 ). Qualitative inquiry between scientistic evidentialism, ethical subjectivism and the free market.   International Review of Qualitative Research, 1, 5–18.

Lather, P. (2005, April). Scientism and scientificity in the rage for accountability: A feminist deconstruction . Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, Montreal, Canada.

Latour, B. ( 2000 ). When things strike back—a possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences.   British Journal of Sociology, 51, 107–123.

Lee, R. M. , & Fielding, N. G. ( 1995 ). User’s experiences of qualitative data analysis software. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp. 29–40). London, England: Sage.

Lee, R. M. , & Fielding, N. G. ( 2004 ). Tools for qualitative data analysis. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 529–548). London, England: Sage.

Lindner, R. ( 1996 ). The reportage of urban culture—Robert Park and the Chicago school . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Machlup, F. ( 1956 ). The inferiority complex of the social sciences. In M. Sennholz (Ed.), On freedom and free enterprise: Essays in honor of Ludwig von Mises (pp. 161–172). Princeton, NJ: van Nostrand.

Manis, J. G. , & Meltzer, B. N. ( 1978 ). Symbolic interactionism: A reader in social psychology . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Markle, D. T. , West, R. E. , & Rich, P. J. ( 2011 ). Beyond transcription: Technology, change, and refinement of method.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(3). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1103216

Mason, J. ( 2002 ). Qualitative researching . London, England: Sage.

Merleau-Ponty, M. ( 1945 /2002). Phenomenology of perception . London, England: Routledge.

Meyer, T. , Gruppe, H. , & Franz, M. ( 2002 ). Microsoft Access for the analysis of open-ended responses in questionnaires and interviews.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/

Michell, J. ( 2003 ). The quantitative imperative: Positivism, naïve realism and the place of qualitative methods in psychology.   Theory & Psychology, 13, 5–31.

Morris, M. B. ( 1977 ). An excursion into creative sociology . Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Mottier, V. ( 2005 ). The interpretive turn: History, memory and storage in qualitative research.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/456/972#gref

Nancarrow, C. , Vir, J. , & Barker, A. ( 2005 ). Ritzer’s McDonaldization and applied qualitative marketing research.   Qualitative Market Research, 8, 296–311.

O’Leary, K. , & Carroll, C. ( 2012 ). The online poker sub-culture: Dialogues, interactions and networks.   Journal of Gambling Studies . Advance online publication. http://www.springerlink.com/content/nl2h233880828g24/fulltext.pdf

Packer, M. ( 2011 ). The science of qualitative research . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Peräkylä, A. , & Ruusuvuori, J. ( 2011 ). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 529–543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peshkin, A. ( 1993 ). The goodness of qualitative research.   Educational Researcher, 22, 24–30.

Pink, S. ( 2007 ). Doing visual ethnography . London, England: Sage.

Polkinghorne, D. ( 2004 ). Practice and the human sciences . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rapley, T. ( 2007 ). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis . London, England: Sage.

Richards, T. , & Richards, L. ( 1998 ). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 211–245). London, England: Sage.

Richardson, F. C. , Fowers, B. J. , & Guignon, C. B. ( 1999 ). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of theory and practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Ricoeur, P. ( 1991 ). Life in quest of a narrative. In D. Wood (Ed.), On Paul Ricoeur: Narrative and interpretation . London, England: Routledge.

Ritzer, G. ( 2008 ). The McDonaldization of society (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

Roberts, K. A. , & Wilson, R. W. ( 2002 ). ICT and the research process: Issues around the compatibility of technology with qualitative data analysis.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0202234

Robinson, D. N. ( 2001 ). Sigmund Koch—philosophically speaking.   American Psychologist, 56, 420–424.

Robinson, D. N. ( 2002 ). Praise and blame: Moral realism and its applications . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rorty, R. ( 1982 ). Consequences of pragmatism . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sandbothe, M. (Ed.). ( 2000 ). Die Renaissance des Pragmatismus . Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

Schwandt, T. ( 2000 ). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189–214). London, England: Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 2001 ). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry . London, England: Sage.

Seidel, J. ( 1991 ). Methods and madness in the application of computer technology to qualitative data analysis. In N. G. Fielding & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 107–116). London, England: Sage.

Steiner, C. J. ( 2002 ). The technicity paradigm and scientism in qualitative research.   The Qualitative Report, 7, 1–23.

St. Pierre, E. A. ( 2011 ). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 611–625). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Verd, J. M. , & Porcel, S. ( 2012 ). An application of qualitative geographic information systems (GIS) in the field of urban sociology using ATLAS.ti: Uses and reflections.   Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(2), Art. 14. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1847

Weaver, A. , & Atkinson, P. ( 1994 ). Microcomputing and qualitative data analysis . Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Weitzman, E. ( 2000 ). Software and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 803–820). London, England: Sage.

Welsh, E. ( 2002 ). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0202260

Wolcott, H. ( 2009 ). Writing up qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

HISTORICAL RESEARCH: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHOD

This paper is a write-up about one of many qualitative research method, namely historical research method.

Related Papers

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)

IJRASET Publication

Historical research describes the past things what was happened. This is related with investigating, recording as well as interpreting the past events with respect to the in present perspectives. Historical research is a procedure for the observation with which researcher. It is a systematic collection and objective evaluation of the collected data with respect to the first occurrence to verify causes and effects related to the events with the help of these two explain the present events as well as anticipate for the future work purpose

Dr Yashpal D Netragaonkar

To find out how and why theories and practices have been developed which are now prevail in schools , a study on the purpose of historical research is very helpful. It deals with the significance of education and its interrel ationship with school and curriculum. In the said research, a study of Historical Research was conducted. Keywords - Historical, Perspective, Predictions, Facts, Past, Hypothesis

ICERI2009 Proceedings

Costas Vassilakis

The paper presents the results of a study on how historians conduct research in a historical archive, and the methodologies they use while searching. Historic research involves finding, using and correlating information within primary and secondary sources, in order to understand past events. Historians conduct research systematically, by examining past events to renew the past; historic research may involve interpretation to recapture the nuances, personalities, and ideas that have influenced these events, and the expected ...

Methods of Analysis

Stephen Petrina

It would seem that historical method has always implied case study if interpreted as the history of single events, episodic history as different from universal history, courtes durées as different from longues durées. From the early twentieth century, historical case study was basically biography, particularities of individuals used to counter the “vast amount of generalization” marking most histories and textbooks (Nichols, 1927, p. 270). Yet historical case study, in the way historians think of it, is primarily a post-WWII methodology.

Miguel S. Valles

El uso de materiales de archivo como punto de partida al disenar y acometer la investigacion social da por supuesto que en nuestras sociedades complejas ha echado raices hace tiempo una cultura de archivo (para compartir y reusar). Esta mentalidad y practica de investigacion se ha desarrollado primero y esta bien asentada en el caso de las estadisticas, encuestas y otros documentos primarios o secundarios. En cambio, es menos frecuente y ciertamente no una actividad rutinaria por lo que respecta a los datos cualitativos. Unicamente algunos de los materiales primarios y elaborados que se reunen durante la investigacion cualitativa pasan a formar parte de un archivo para su ulterior re-analisis. Pueden ser practicas y experiencias de trastienda de un proyecto, materiales en bruto tales como notas de campo, grabaciones de audio y visuales, y otros documentos producidos a lo largo del proceso de investigacion. Este volumen presenta una variopinta gama de articulos que abordan experienci...

Joseph Bryant

The Research on History I

ISTES Publication

The Research on History I Editors Özlem Muraz Budak Through its wide field of study, the science of history has succeeded in addressing all kinds of issues that have happened in the past. Many events that have happened in the past and affect the future have found a place in the science of history. It is important for every nation to know its history in order to learn lessons from the past. Every nation has a unique culture and these cultures extend to the present day. The science of history is used to learn about the past. This book aims to contribute to the development of scientific publications and publishing in social sciences in general and history in particular. In this sense, qualified studies covering every subject related to both national and regional history and world history are included. We will be pleased to contribute to the literature with these original works written in every field of history and to the qualified scientific studies related to the auxiliary branches of history. Citation Budak, Ö. M. (Ed.). (2023). The Research on History I. ISTES Organization.

Albert Mills

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research

Maria Tamboukou

The use of archival materials as a point of departure when designing and launching social research takes for granted that a culture of archiving (for sharing and re-use) has rooted time ago in our complex societies. This mentality and research practice first flourished and is fairly well installed in the case of statistics, surveys and certain other primary or secondary documents. On the contrary, it is less frequent and certainly not a routine activity for qualitative data. Only some of the raw and elaborated materials gathered during ...

RELATED PAPERS

Ravet Call Girls Service

rohan mehta

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

NORDIANA SALIM

Civil Engineering and Architecture

Murni Yunus

Iliana Ferrer

Esther Dyson

Microsystem Technologies

Gunnar Suchaneck

Social Service Review

CATHERINE BORN

Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine

Muhammad anwar ul haq

Dmitry Schur

The Journal of Physiology

Raymond Dingledine

Turkish Journal of Mathematics

Çağrı Demir

muhammad idris jaafar

dhtyhetyh Bhogati

Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety

Lucy A Savitz

Recherches en communication

eric Dacheux

Terrence Brannon

ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA

Antonios Tsagkarakis

Cogent Engineering

mousumi pal

Opiniães – Revista dos Alunos de Literatura Brasileira

Opiniães Revista dos Alunos de Literatura Brasileira da USP

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Privacy Policy

Home » Historical Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Historical Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Table of Contents

Historical Research

Definition:

Historical research is the process of investigating and studying past events, people, and societies using a variety of sources and methods. This type of research aims to reconstruct and interpret the past based on the available evidence.

Types of Historical Research

There are several types of historical research, including:

Descriptive Research

This type of historical research focuses on describing events, people, or cultures in detail. It can involve examining artifacts, documents, or other sources of information to create a detailed account of what happened or existed.

Analytical Research

This type of historical research aims to explain why events, people, or cultures occurred in a certain way. It involves analyzing data to identify patterns, causes, and effects, and making interpretations based on this analysis.

Comparative Research

This type of historical research involves comparing two or more events, people, or cultures to identify similarities and differences. This can help researchers understand the unique characteristics of each and how they interacted with each other.

Interpretive Research

This type of historical research focuses on interpreting the meaning of past events, people, or cultures. It can involve analyzing cultural symbols, beliefs, and practices to understand their significance in a particular historical context.

Quantitative Research

This type of historical research involves using statistical methods to analyze historical data. It can involve examining demographic information, economic indicators, or other quantitative data to identify patterns and trends.

Qualitative Research

This type of historical research involves examining non-numerical data such as personal accounts, letters, or diaries. It can provide insights into the experiences and perspectives of individuals during a particular historical period.

Data Collection Methods

Data Collection Methods are as follows:

• Archival research : This involves analyzing documents and records that have been preserved over time, such as government records, diaries, letters, newspapers, and photographs. Archival research is often conducted in libraries, archives, and museums.
• Oral history : This involves conducting interviews with individuals who have lived through a particular historical period or event. Oral history can provide a unique perspective on past events and can help to fill gaps in the historical record.
• Artifact analysis: This involves examining physical objects from the past, such as tools, clothing, and artwork, to gain insights into past cultures and practices.
• Secondary sources: This involves analyzing published works, such as books, articles, and academic papers, that discuss past events and cultures. Secondary sources can provide context and insights into the historical period being studied.
• Statistical analysis : This involves analyzing numerical data from the past, such as census records or economic data, to identify patterns and trends.
• Fieldwork : This involves conducting on-site research in a particular location, such as visiting a historical site or conducting ethnographic research in a particular community. Fieldwork can provide a firsthand understanding of the culture and environment being studied.
• Content analysis: This involves analyzing the content of media from the past, such as films, television programs, and advertisements, to gain insights into cultural attitudes and beliefs.

Data Analysis Methods

• Content analysis : This involves analyzing the content of written or visual material, such as books, newspapers, or photographs, to identify patterns and themes. Content analysis can be used to identify changes in cultural values and beliefs over time.
• Textual analysis : This involves analyzing written texts, such as letters or diaries, to understand the experiences and perspectives of individuals during a particular historical period. Textual analysis can provide insights into how people lived and thought in the past.
• Discourse analysis : This involves analyzing how language is used to construct meaning and power relations in a particular historical period. Discourse analysis can help to identify how social and political ideologies were constructed and maintained over time.
• Statistical analysis: This involves using statistical methods to analyze numerical data, such as census records or economic data, to identify patterns and trends. Statistical analysis can help to identify changes in population demographics, economic conditions, and other factors over time.
• Comparative analysis : This involves comparing data from two or more historical periods or events to identify similarities and differences. Comparative analysis can help to identify patterns and trends that may not be apparent from analyzing data from a single historical period.
• Qualitative analysis: This involves analyzing non-numerical data, such as oral history interviews or ethnographic field notes, to identify themes and patterns. Qualitative analysis can provide a rich understanding of the experiences and perspectives of individuals in the past.

Historical Research Methodology

Here are the general steps involved in historical research methodology:

• Define the research question: Start by identifying a research question that you want to answer through your historical research. This question should be focused, specific, and relevant to your research goals.
• Review the literature: Conduct a review of the existing literature on the topic of your research question. This can involve reading books, articles, and academic papers to gain a thorough understanding of the existing research.
• Develop a research design : Develop a research design that outlines the methods you will use to collect and analyze data. This design should be based on the research question and should be feasible given the resources and time available.
• Collect data: Use the methods outlined in your research design to collect data on past events, people, and cultures. This can involve archival research, oral history interviews, artifact analysis, and other data collection methods.
• Analyze data : Analyze the data you have collected using the methods outlined in your research design. This can involve content analysis, textual analysis, statistical analysis, and other data analysis methods.
• Interpret findings : Use the results of your data analysis to draw meaningful insights and conclusions related to your research question. These insights should be grounded in the data and should be relevant to the research goals.
• Communicate results: Communicate your findings through a research report, academic paper, or other means. This should be done in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner, with appropriate citations and references to the literature.

Applications of Historical Research

Historical research has a wide range of applications in various fields, including:

• Education : Historical research can be used to develop curriculum materials that reflect a more accurate and inclusive representation of history. It can also be used to provide students with a deeper understanding of past events and cultures.
• Museums : Historical research is used to develop exhibits, programs, and other materials for museums. It can provide a more accurate and engaging presentation of historical events and artifacts.
• Public policy : Historical research is used to inform public policy decisions by providing insights into the historical context of current issues. It can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of past policies and programs.
• Business : Historical research can be used by businesses to understand the evolution of their industry and to identify trends that may affect their future success. It can also be used to develop marketing strategies that resonate with customers’ historical interests and values.
• Law : Historical research is used in legal proceedings to provide evidence and context for cases involving historical events or practices. It can also be used to inform the development of new laws and policies.
• Genealogy : Historical research can be used by individuals to trace their family history and to understand their ancestral roots.
• Cultural preservation : Historical research is used to preserve cultural heritage by documenting and interpreting past events, practices, and traditions. It can also be used to identify and preserve historical landmarks and artifacts.

Examples of Historical Research

Examples of Historical Research are as follows:

• Examining the history of race relations in the United States: Historical research could be used to explore the historical roots of racial inequality and injustice in the United States. This could help inform current efforts to address systemic racism and promote social justice.
• Tracing the evolution of political ideologies: Historical research could be used to study the development of political ideologies over time. This could help to contextualize current political debates and provide insights into the origins and evolution of political beliefs and values.
• Analyzing the impact of technology on society : Historical research could be used to explore the impact of technology on society over time. This could include examining the impact of previous technological revolutions (such as the industrial revolution) on society, as well as studying the current impact of emerging technologies on society and the environment.
• Documenting the history of marginalized communities : Historical research could be used to document the history of marginalized communities (such as LGBTQ+ communities or indigenous communities). This could help to preserve cultural heritage, promote social justice, and promote a more inclusive understanding of history.

Purpose of Historical Research

The purpose of historical research is to study the past in order to gain a better understanding of the present and to inform future decision-making. Some specific purposes of historical research include:

• To understand the origins of current events, practices, and institutions : Historical research can be used to explore the historical roots of current events, practices, and institutions. By understanding how things developed over time, we can gain a better understanding of the present.
• To develop a more accurate and inclusive understanding of history : Historical research can be used to correct inaccuracies and biases in historical narratives. By exploring different perspectives and sources of information, we can develop a more complete and nuanced understanding of history.
• To inform decision-making: Historical research can be used to inform decision-making in various fields, including education, public policy, business, and law. By understanding the historical context of current issues, we can make more informed decisions about how to address them.
• To preserve cultural heritage : Historical research can be used to document and preserve cultural heritage, including traditions, practices, and artifacts. By understanding the historical significance of these cultural elements, we can work to preserve them for future generations.
• To stimulate curiosity and critical thinking: Historical research can be used to stimulate curiosity and critical thinking about the past. By exploring different historical perspectives and interpretations, we can develop a more critical and reflective approach to understanding history and its relevance to the present.

When to use Historical Research

Historical research can be useful in a variety of contexts. Here are some examples of when historical research might be particularly appropriate:

• When examining the historical roots of current events: Historical research can be used to explore the historical roots of current events, practices, and institutions. By understanding how things developed over time, we can gain a better understanding of the present.
• When examining the historical context of a particular topic : Historical research can be used to explore the historical context of a particular topic, such as a social issue, political debate, or scientific development. By understanding the historical context, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the topic and its significance.
• When exploring the evolution of a particular field or discipline : Historical research can be used to explore the evolution of a particular field or discipline, such as medicine, law, or art. By understanding the historical development of the field, we can gain a better understanding of its current state and future directions.
• When examining the impact of past events on current society : Historical research can be used to examine the impact of past events (such as wars, revolutions, or social movements) on current society. By understanding the historical context and impact of these events, we can gain insights into current social and political issues.
• When studying the cultural heritage of a particular community or group : Historical research can be used to document and preserve the cultural heritage of a particular community or group. By understanding the historical significance of cultural practices, traditions, and artifacts, we can work to preserve them for future generations.

Characteristics of Historical Research

The following are some characteristics of historical research:

• Focus on the past : Historical research focuses on events, people, and phenomena of the past. It seeks to understand how things developed over time and how they relate to current events.
• Reliance on primary sources: Historical research relies on primary sources such as letters, diaries, newspapers, government documents, and other artifacts from the period being studied. These sources provide firsthand accounts of events and can help researchers gain a more accurate understanding of the past.
• Interpretation of data : Historical research involves interpretation of data from primary sources. Researchers analyze and interpret data to draw conclusions about the past.
• Use of multiple sources: Historical research often involves using multiple sources of data to gain a more complete understanding of the past. By examining a range of sources, researchers can cross-reference information and validate their findings.
• Importance of context: Historical research emphasizes the importance of context. Researchers analyze the historical context in which events occurred and consider how that context influenced people’s actions and decisions.
• Subjectivity : Historical research is inherently subjective, as researchers interpret data and draw conclusions based on their own perspectives and biases. Researchers must be aware of their own biases and strive for objectivity in their analysis.
• Importance of historical significance: Historical research emphasizes the importance of historical significance. Researchers consider the historical significance of events, people, and phenomena and their impact on the present and future.
• Use of qualitative methods : Historical research often uses qualitative methods such as content analysis, discourse analysis, and narrative analysis to analyze data and draw conclusions about the past.

Advantages of Historical Research

There are several advantages to historical research:

• Provides a deeper understanding of the past : Historical research can provide a more comprehensive understanding of past events and how they have shaped current social, political, and economic conditions. This can help individuals and organizations make informed decisions about the future.
• Helps preserve cultural heritage: Historical research can be used to document and preserve cultural heritage. By studying the history of a particular culture, researchers can gain insights into the cultural practices and beliefs that have shaped that culture over time.
• Provides insights into long-term trends : Historical research can provide insights into long-term trends and patterns. By studying historical data over time, researchers can identify patterns and trends that may be difficult to discern from short-term data.
• Facilitates the development of hypotheses: Historical research can facilitate the development of hypotheses about how past events have influenced current conditions. These hypotheses can be tested using other research methods, such as experiments or surveys.
• Helps identify root causes of social problems : Historical research can help identify the root causes of social problems. By studying the historical context in which these problems developed, researchers can gain a better understanding of how they emerged and what factors may have contributed to their development.
• Provides a source of inspiration: Historical research can provide a source of inspiration for individuals and organizations seeking to address current social, political, and economic challenges. By studying the accomplishments and struggles of past generations, researchers can gain insights into how to address current challenges.

Limitations of Historical Research

Some Limitations of Historical Research are as follows:

• Reliance on incomplete or biased data: Historical research is often limited by the availability and quality of data. Many primary sources have been lost, destroyed, or are inaccessible, making it difficult to get a complete picture of historical events. Additionally, some primary sources may be biased or represent only one perspective on an event.
• Difficulty in generalizing findings: Historical research is often specific to a particular time and place and may not be easily generalized to other contexts. This makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions about human behavior or social phenomena.
• Lack of control over variables : Historical research often lacks control over variables. Researchers cannot manipulate or control historical events, making it difficult to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
• Subjectivity of interpretation : Historical research is often subjective because researchers must interpret data and draw conclusions based on their own biases and perspectives. Different researchers may interpret the same data differently, leading to different conclusions.
• Limited ability to test hypotheses: Historical research is often limited in its ability to test hypotheses. Because the events being studied have already occurred, researchers cannot manipulate variables or conduct experiments to test their hypotheses.
• Lack of objectivity: Historical research is often subjective, and researchers must be aware of their own biases and strive for objectivity in their analysis. However, it can be difficult to maintain objectivity when studying events that are emotionally charged or controversial.
• Limited generalizability: Historical research is often limited in its generalizability, as the events and conditions being studied may be specific to a particular time and place. This makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions that apply to other contexts or time periods.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Humanities Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Documentary Research – Types, Methods and...

Artistic Research – Methods, Types and Examples

Scientific Research – Types, Purpose and Guide

Original Research – Definition, Examples, Guide

Qualitative study design: Case Studies

• Qualitative study design
• Phenomenology
• Grounded theory
• Ethnography
• Narrative inquiry
• Action research

Case Studies

• Field research
• Focus groups
• Observation
• Surveys & questionnaires
• Study Designs Home

In depth description of the experience of a single person, a family, a group, a community or an organisation.

An example of a qualitative case study is a life history which is the story of one specific person.  A case study may be done to highlight a specific issue by telling a story of one person or one group. 

• Oral recording

Ability to explore and describe, in depth, an issue or event. 

Develop an understanding of health, illness and health care in context. 

Single case can be used to develop or disprove a theory. 

Can be used as a model or prototype .  

Limitations

Labour intensive and generates large diverse data sets which can be hard to manage. 

Case studies are seen by many as a weak methodology because they only look at one person or one specific group and aren’t as broad in their participant selection as other methodologies. 

Example questions

This methodology can be used to ask questions about a specific drug or treatment and its effects on an individual.

• Does thalidomide cause birth defects?
• Does exposure to a pesticide lead to cancer?

Example studies

• Choi, T. S. T., Walker, K. Z., & Palermo, C. (2018). Diabetes management in a foreign land: A case study on Chinese Australians. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(2), e225-e232. 
• Reade, I., Rodgers, W., & Spriggs, K. (2008). New Ideas for High Performance Coaches: A Case Study of Knowledge Transfer in Sport Science.  International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching , 3(3), 335-354. 
• Wingrove, K., Barbour, L., & Palermo, C. (2017). Exploring nutrition capacity in Australia's charitable food sector.  Nutrition & Dietetics , 74(5), 495-501. 
• Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research (4th ed.). London: SAGE. 
• University of Missouri-St. Louis. Qualitative Research Designs. Retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~lindquists/qualdsgn.html   
• << Previous: Action research
• Next: Field research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 11:12 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

Hello our valued visitor, We present you the best web solutions and high quality graphic designs with a lot of features. just login to your account and enjoy ...

• [email protected]
• Call Us: 1-800-261-6861

Menu Navigation

• Our Approach
• Our Authors
• Our Experience

Useful Links

Publications.

• LFH Book Series
• LFH eLearning Courses
• LFH Video Library
• MP3/DVD/CDs

University & College

• Education & Lectures
• Historical Research (Case Based)
• Interdisciplinary Reseach

Management Training

• Scenario Workshops
• Webinar Development
• Decision Making & Skills

Speaking Program

• Events (Conferences, Keynotes)
• Public Libraries

Professional Advisory

• LFH Consulting
• Extrapolating Best Practices
• Future Visioning & Scenarios

LFH Overview

Historical research, you are here.

...qualitative research helps to understand human experience and meaning within a given context using text rather than numbers, interpreting experience and meaning to generate understanding, and recognizing the role of the researcher in the construction of knowledge.

We use a Qualitative Research Framework as proposed by Carter and Little (2007, pp. 1316) (figure below) founded on epistemology, methodology and method, and their interrelationships:

Epistemology guides methodological choices and is axiological. Methodology shapes and is shaped by research objectives, questions, and study design. Methodologies can prescribe choices of method, resonate with particular academic disciplines, and encourage or discourage the use and/or development of theory. Method is constrained by and makes visible methodological and epistemic choices.

...hard skills [Positivism] are focused on the administrative tasks, in particular the use of the toolsets within project management, and associated with a hard systems worldview. Soft skills [Interprevitism] enable working through and with people and groups, and with that, handling the associated human factors. (Maylor and Söderlund, 2012, pp. 689)

As part of our approach there are two primary research methodologies, case study research and historiography advocated for researching historical management and project management. Both have been used extensively for LFH publications. Knowledge of the past can inform our future actions, so it is necessary that the interpretation of history is based on sound historiographical techniques and judgements. A third supportive methodology interdisciplinarity has been used with more recent publications to guide the research.

The research can be used to discover patterns in different historical case studies.

According to Petty et al (2012, pp.269):

• The History of Project Management
• Procept Associates Ltd
• International Project Management Assoc.
• Project Management Institute (PMI)

Latest Tweets

Keep in touch.

• 1234 Kingston Road, Suite 125, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M1N 1P3
• 1-800-261-6861
• View our map

© Copyrights Lessons-from-History 2016. All rights reserved.

Layout Style

Predefined colors.

All about higher education & research

Some of the distinct Similarities and Key Differences between Case Study and Historical Research Design?

Both case study and historical research design share qualitative methodologies that involve in-depth exploration and a contextual understanding of their subjects. They both employ rich data collection methods, emphasizing the importance of holistic perspectives and participant-centered approaches.

However, key differences arise in their temporal focus and scope. Case studies typically concentrate on present or recent instances, providing detailed insights into specific cases, while historical research design spans a longer time frame, examining historical events and trends with a broader contextual lens.

The unit of analysis also varies, with case studies focusing on individual cases and historical research analyzing events and developments over time. While both contribute to a nuanced understanding of their subjects, case studies tend to yield practical insights for immediate application, whereas historical research design contributes to a broader understanding of historical processes. Both methodologies prioritize the unique characteristics of their subjects, whether a specific case or historical events, and involve an interpretive process to derive meaning.

However, key differences lie in their temporal dimensions and scope; case studies focus on the present or recent past with a narrow scope, analyzing specific instances, while historical research design spans a longer time frame, addressing broader historical events and developments. The unit of analysis differs, with case studies examining a specific case, and historical research considering historical events and their implications. Additionally, the purposes diverge, as case studies aim for practical insights, while historical research contributes to a broader understanding of historical processes with potential generalizability.

These distinctions underscore the nuanced applications of each approach in research contexts. In this blog post, we highlight some of the apparent similarities and key differences between case study and historical research design. But first of all, let us discuss some of the obvious similarities between the two research designs.

Similarities between Case Study and Historical Research Design

• Both case study and historical research design are qualitative research methods. They involve in-depth analysis and interpretation of data to gain a nuanced understanding of the subject matter.
• Both methodologies often involve the collection of rich and detailed data. This can include sources such as documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the subject.
• Both approaches emphasize the importance of context in understanding the phenomena under investigation. Case studies consider the real-life context of a specific instance, while historical research delves into the historical context surrounding events and developments.
• Both case study and historical research take a holistic perspective. They aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject, considering various aspects, relationships, and influences.
• Both methodologies involve an in-depth exploration of the subject matter. Case studies seek to provide a detailed examination of a particular case, while historical research aims to understand events and their significance over time.
• Both approaches often require the analysis of multiple data sources. Researchers in case studies and historical research may examine various documents, artifacts, and other forms of evidence to construct a detailed narrative.
• Both methodologies often focus on specificity. Case studies delve into a particular instance or bounded system, while historical research aims to understand specific historical events and their impact.
• Both case study and historical research involve an interpretive process. Researchers analyze and interpret the data to derive meaning and insights, recognizing the subjective nature of their interpretations.
• Both methodologies have the potential to contribute to theoretical understanding. Case studies may generate insights applicable to broader contexts, and historical research can contribute to the development of historical theories or perspectives.
• Unique contextualization:
• Both approaches involve the unique contextualization of the subject matter. Case studies contextualize a specific instance within its real-world setting, while historical research contextualizes events within the historical period in which they occurred.

Understanding these similarities can help researchers appreciate the commonalities in their qualitative approaches and adapt their methods accordingly, depending on whether they are conducting a case study or historical research.

Case studies and historical research design differ primarily in their focus and scope. While historical research design adopts an observational stance, contributing to theoretical perspectives and a comprehensive understanding of historical phenomena, the unit of analysis also varies, a great deal with case studies.  These distinctions highlight the nuanced applications of each approach in research contexts.  In the next section of this write-up, we discuss key differences between case study and historical research design

Key differences between Case Study and Historical Research Design

• Case Study: Primarily focuses on the present or recent past, examining a specific instance or bounded system within its current or recent context.
• Historical Research Design: Focuses on the past, exploring events, developments, and phenomena within a historical context, often involving a longitudinal perspective.
• Case Study: Typically has a narrower scope, concentrating on a specific case or bounded system to provide an in-depth understanding.
• Historical Research Design: Encompasses a broader scope, aiming to understand historical events, trends, and their implications over a longer period.
• Case Study: The unit of analysis is the specific case itself, which could be an individual, a group, an organization, or a community.
• Historical Research Design: The unit of analysis is historical events, periods, or developments, often involving a broader societal or contextual focus.
• Case Study: Aims to provide a detailed understanding of a specific instance, often to inform practical applications or interventions.
• Historical Research Design: Aims to explore and understand historical events, patterns, and trends for the sake of knowledge and understanding historical processes.
• Case Study: Generalization is typically not the primary goal, as the emphasis is on the unique aspects of the specific case.
• Historical Research Design: Seeks to draw generalizable conclusions about historical trends, events, or phenomena, contributing to a broader understanding of historical processes.
• Case Study: Involves an in-depth examination of the specific case, often through pattern recognition and exploration of relationships within the case.
• Historical Research Design: Involves analysis of historical documents, artifacts, and evidence to construct a narrative or interpretation of historical events and their significance.
• Case Study: Typically has a more immediate or short-term temporal perspective, focusing on recent or current events.
• Historical Research Design: Requires a longer-term temporal perspective, examining events and developments over an extended period in the past.
• Case Study: The researcher often plays an active role, engaging with the case and collecting multiple forms of data.
• Historical Research Design: The researcher adopts a more observational and interpretive role, analyzing historical documents and evidence to construct a narrative.
• Case Study: Findings may have direct implications for the specific case or similar cases in similar contexts.
• Historical Research Design: Findings contribute to a broader historical understanding and may inform our knowledge of historical processes, but the direct applicability to present situations may vary.
• Case Study: May contribute to theory development, especially when patterns observed in the case have broader implications.
• Historical Research Design: Can contribute to the development of historical theories or perspectives, providing insights into the dynamics of historical events.

Both case study and historical research design are valuable tools for gaining insights into complex issues. The choice of which design to use depends on the specific research question and the available data. Understanding these key similarities and differences helps researchers choose the most appropriate approach based on their research objectives and the nature of the subject matter.

Dr Syed Hafeez Ahmad

You Might Also Like

How to Structure Grounded Theory Research Design with Useful Examples?

How to analyze data of a case study research: A practical example of an exploratory study

Why the majority of PhD students suffer from depression?

Plagiarism: How the smart cheaters beat the technology?

How to write an effective abstract?

Choosing the Right Research Philosophy for Grounded Theory Research Design

What do you think cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments Yet.

Recent Posts

• Transforming Higher Education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: The Task Force Ambitious Plan
• Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilization from the Past
• Philanthropy in higher education in Pakistan: Learning to donate
• How to overcome inordinate delays in recruitment and selection in Universities in Pakistan?
• Appointment of new Vice Chancellors: Demands urgent attention of the Government in Pakistan

Recent Comments

• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2021
• November 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• Academic Integrity
• Academic Leadership
• Book Review
• Critical Thinking
• Data Analysis
• Enterprising skillset
• Ethnography
• Grounded Theory
• Historical Research
• Innovations
• Leadership Theories
• Medical Education
• Personalities
• Phenomenology
• Public Policy
• Public Sector
• Research Proposal
• Universities Governance
• University-Industry Collaboration
• Work from Home

About Author

Hi, my name is Dr. Hafeez

I am a research blogger, YouTuber and content writer. This blog is aimed at sharing my knowledge, experience and insight with the academics, research scholars and policy makers about universities' governance and changing dynamics of higher education landscape in Pakistan.

5 Types of Qualitative Methods

But just as with quantitative methods, there are actually many varieties of qualitative methods.

Similar to the way you can group usability testing methods , there are also a number of ways to segment qualitative methods.

A popular and helpful categorization separate qualitative methods into five groups: ethnography, narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, and case study. John Creswell outlines these five methods in Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design .

While the five methods generally use similar data collection techniques (observation, interviews, and reviewing text), the purpose of the study differentiates them—something similar with different types of usability tests . And like classifying different usability studies, the differences between the methods can be a bit blurry. Here are the five qualitative methods in more detail.

1. Ethnography

Ethnographic research is probably the most familiar and applicable type of qualitative method to UX professionals. In ethnography, you immerse yourself in the target participants’ environment to understand the goals, cultures, challenges, motivations, and themes that emerge. Ethnography has its roots in cultural anthropology where researchers immerse themselves within a culture, often for years! Rather than relying on interviews or surveys, you experience the environment first hand, and sometimes as a “participant observer.”

For example, one way of uncovering the unmet needs of customers is to “ follow them home ” and observe them as they interact with the product. You don’t come armed with any hypotheses to necessarily test; rather, you’re looking to find out how a product is used.

2. Narrative

The narrative approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals to form a cohesive story. You conduct in-depth interviews, read documents, and look for themes; in other words, how does an individual story illustrate the larger life influences that created it. Often interviews are conducted over weeks, months, or even years, but the final narrative doesn’t need to be in chronological order. Rather it can be presented as a story (or narrative) with themes, and can reconcile conflicting stories and highlight tensions and challenges which can be opportunities for innovation.

For example, a narrative approach can be an appropriate method for building a persona . While a persona should be built using a mix of methods—including segmentation analysis from surveys—in-depth interviews with individuals in an identified persona can provide the details that help describe the culture, whether it’s a person living with Multiple Sclerosis, a prospective student applying for college, or a working mom.

3. Phenomenological

When you want to describe an event, activity, or phenomenon, the aptly named phenomenological study is an appropriate qualitative method. In a phenomenological study, you use a combination of methods, such as conducting interviews, reading documents, watching videos, or visiting places and events, to understand the meaning participants place on whatever’s being examined. You rely on the participants’ own perspectives to provide insight into their motivations.

Like other qualitative methods, you don’t start with a well-formed hypothesis. In a phenomenological study, you often conduct a lot of interviews, usually between 5 and 25 for common themes , to build a sufficient dataset to look for emerging themes and to use other participants to validate your findings.

For example, there’s been an explosion in the last 5 years in online courses and training. But how do students engage with these courses? While you can examine time spent and content accessed using log data and even assess student achievement vis-a-vis in-person courses, a phenomenological study would aim to better understand the students experience and how that may impact comprehension of the material.

4. Grounded Theory

Whereas a phenomenological study looks to describe the essence of an activity or event, grounded theory looks to provide an explanation or theory behind the events. You use primarily interviews and existing documents to build a theory based on the data. You go through a series of open and axial coding techniques to identify themes and build the theory. Sample sizes are often also larger—between 20 to 60—with these studies to better establish a theory. Grounded theory can help inform design decisions by better understanding how a community of users currently use a product or perform tasks.

For example, a grounded theory study could involve understanding how software developers use portals to communicate and write code or how small retail merchants approve or decline customers for credit.

5. Case Study

Made famous by the Harvard Business School, even mainly quantitative researchers can relate to the value of the case study in explaining an organization, entity, company, or event. A case study involves a deep understanding through multiple types of data sources. Case studies can be explanatory, exploratory, or describing an event. The annual CHI conference has a peer-reviewed track dedicated to case studies.

For example, a case study of how a large multi-national company introduced UX methods into an agile development environment would be informative to many organizations.

The table below summarizes the differences between the five qualitative methods.

You might also be interested in

• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada

• Laura Jane Brubacher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2806-9539 1 , 2 ,
• Chris Y. Lovato 1 ,
• Veena Sriram 1 , 3 ,
• Michael Cheng 1 &
• Peter Berman 1  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  66 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The challenges of evidence-informed decision-making in a public health emergency have never been so notable as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions about the decision-making process, including what forms of evidence were used, and how evidence informed—or did not inform—policy have been debated.

We examined decision-makers' observations on evidence-use in early COVID-19 policy-making in British Columbia (BC), Canada through a qualitative case study. From July 2021- January 2022, we conducted 18 semi-structured key informant interviews with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors involved in the public health response. The questions focused on: (1) the use of evidence in policy-making; (2) the interface between researchers and policy-makers; and (3) key challenges perceived by respondents as barriers to applying evidence to COVID-19 policy decisions. Data were analyzed thematically, using a constant comparative method. Framework analysis was also employed to generate analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives.

Overall, while many actors’ impressions were that BC's early COVID-19 policy response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty as to what evidence was used and how it flowed into decision-making processes. Perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform pandemic governance. Respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy.

Conclusions

Areas to be considered in planning for future emergencies include: information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination of data collection and use, and transparency as to how decisions are made—all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Based on our findings, clear mechanisms and processes for channeling varied forms of evidence into decision-making need to be identified, and doing so will strengthen preparedness for future public health crises.

Peer Review reports

The challenges of evidence-informed decision-making Footnote 1 in a public health emergency have never been so salient as during the COVID-19 pandemic, given its unprecedented scale, rapidly evolving virology, and multitude of global information systems to gather, synthesize, and disseminate evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and associated public health and social measures [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid decision-making became central for governments globally as they grappled with crucial decisions for which there was limited evidence. Critical questions exist, in looking retrospectively at these decision-making processes and with an eye to strengthening future preparedness: Were decisions informed by 'evidence'? What forms of evidence were used, and how, by decision-makers? [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Scientific evidence, including primary research, epidemiologic research, and knowledge synthesis, is one among multiple competing influences that inform decision-making processes in an outbreak such as COVID-19 [ 7 ]. Indeed, the use of multiple forms of evidence has been particularly notable as it applies to COVID-19 policy-making. Emerging research has also documented the important influence of ‘non-scientific’ evidence such as specialized expertise and experience, contextual information, and level of available resources [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the politics of evidence-use in policy-making [ 11 ]; what evidence is used and how can be unclear, and shaped by political bias [ 4 , 5 ]. Moreover, while many governments have established scientific advisory boards, the perspectives of these advisors were reportedly largely absent from COVID-19 policy processes [ 6 ]. How evidence and public health policy interface—and intersect—is a complex question, particularly in the dynamic context of a public health emergency.

Within Canada, a hallmark of the public health system and endorsed by government is evidence-informed decision-making [ 12 ]. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, during the early phases of COVID-19 (March—June 2020), provincial public health communication focused primarily on voluntary compliance with recommended public health and social measures, and on supporting those most affected by the pandemic. Later, the response shifted from voluntary compliance to mandatory enforceable government orders [ 13 ]. Like many other jurisdictions, the government’s public messaging in BC asserted that the province took an approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic and developing related policy that was based on scientific evidence, specifically. For example, in March 2021, in announcing changes to vaccination plans, Dr. Bonnie Henry, the Provincial Health Officer, stated, " This is science in action " [ 14 ]. As a public health expert with scientific voice, the Provincial Health Officer has been empowered to speak on behalf of the BC government across the COVID-19 pandemic progression. While this suggests BC is a jurisdiction which has institutionalized scientifically-informed decision-making as a core tenet of effective public health crisis response, it remains unclear as to whether BC’s COVID-19 response could, in fact, be considered evidence-informed—particularly from the perspectives of those involved in pandemic decision-making and action. Moreover, if evidence-informed, what types of evidence were utilized and through what mechanisms, how did this evidence shape decision-making, and what challenges existed in moving evidence to policy and praxis in BC’s COVID-19 response?

The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore and characterize the perspectives of BC actors involved in the COVID-19 response with respect to evidence-use in COVID-19 decision-making; and (2) to identify opportunities for and barriers to evidence-informed decision-making in BC’s COVID-19 response, and more broadly. This inquiry may contribute to identifying opportunities for further strengthening the synthesis and application of evidence (considered broadly) to public health policy and decision-making, particularly in the context of future public health emergencies, both in British Columbia and other jurisdictions.

Study context

This qualitative study was conducted in the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, a jurisdiction with a population of approximately five million people [ 15 ]. Within BC’s health sector, key actors involved in the policy response to COVID-19 included: elected officials, the BC Government’s Ministry of Health (MOH), the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA), Footnote 2 the Office of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO), Footnote 3 the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), Footnote 4 and Medical Health Officers (MHOs) and Chief MHOs at regional and local levels.

Health research infrastructure within the province includes Michael Smith Health Research BC [ 16 ] and multiple post-secondary research and education institutions (e.g., The University of British Columbia). Unlike other provincial (e.g., Ontario) and international (e.g., UK) jurisdictions, BC did not establish an independent, formal scientific advisory panel or separate organizational structure for public health intelligence in COVID-19. That said, a Strategic Research Advisory Council was established, reporting to the MOH and PHO, to identify COVID-19 research gaps and commission needed research for use within the COVID-19 response [ 17 ].

This research was part of a multidisciplinary UBC case study investigating the upstream determinants of the COVID-19 response in British Columbia, particularly related to institutions, politics, and organizations and how these interfaced with, and affected, pandemic governance [ 18 ]. Ethics approval for this study was provided by the University of British Columbia (UBC)’s Institutional Research Ethics Board (Certificate #: H20-02136).

Data collection

From July 2021 to January 2022, 18 semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors (e.g., within non-profit research organizations, unions) (Table 1 ). Initially, respondents were purposively sampled, based on their involvement in the COVID-19 response and their positioning within the health system organizational structure. Snowball sampling was used to identify additional respondents, with the intent of representing a range of organizational roles and actor perspectives. Participants were recruited via email invitation and provided written informed consent to participate.

Interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom® videoconferencing, with the exception of one hybrid in-person/Zoom® interview. Each interview was approximately one hour in duration. One to two research team members led each interview. The full interview protocol focused on actors’ descriptions of decision-making processes across the COVID-19 pandemic progression, from January 2020 to the date of the interviews, and they were asked to identify key decision points (e.g., emergency declaration, business closures) [see Additional File 1 for the full semi-structured interview guide]. For this study, we used a subset of interview questions focused on evidence-use in the decision-making process, and the organizational structures or actors involved, in BC's early COVID-19 pandemic response (March–August 2020). Questions were adapted to be relevant to a respondent’s expertise and particular involvement in the response. ‘Evidence’ was left undefined and considered broadly by the research team (i.e., both ‘scientific’/research-based and ‘non-scientific’ inputs) within interview questions, and therefore at the discretion of the participant as to what inputs they perceived and described as ‘evidence’ that informed or did not inform pandemic decision-making. Interviews were audio-recorded over Zoom® with permission and transcribed using NVivo Release 1.5© software. Each transcript was then manually verified for accuracy by 1–2 members of the research team.

Data analysis

An inductive thematic analysis was conducted, using a constant comparative method, to explore points of divergence and convergence across interviews and stakeholder perspectives [ 19 ]. Transcripts were inductively coded in NVivo Release 1.5© software, which was used to further organize and consolidate codes, generate a parsimonious codebook to fit the data, and retrieve interview excerpts [ 20 ]. Framework analysis was also employed as an additional method for generating analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives and contributed to refining the overall coding [ 21 ]. Triangulation across respondents and analytic methods, as well as team collaboration in reviewing and refining the codebook, contributed to validity of the analysis [ 22 ].

How did evidence inform early COVID-19 policy-making in BC?

Decision-makers described their perceptions on the use of evidence in policy-making; the interface between researchers and policy-makers; and specific barriers to evidence-use in policy-making within BC’s COVID-19 response. In discussing the use of evidence, respondents focused on ‘scientific’ evidence; however, they noted a lack of clarity as to how and what evidence flowed into decision-making. They also acknowledged that ‘scientific’ evidence was one of multiple factors influencing decisions. The themes described below reflect the narrative underlying their perspectives.

Perceptions of evidence-use

Multiple provincial actors generally expressed confidence or had an overall impression that decisions were evidence-based (IDI5,9), stating definitively that, "I don’t think there was a decision we made that wasn’t evidence-informed" (IDI9) and that "the science became a driver of decisions that were made" (IDI5). However, at the regional health authority level, one actor voiced skepticism that policy decisions were consistently informed by scientific evidence specifically, stating, "a lot of decisions [the PHO] made were in contrast to science and then shifted to be by the science" ( IDI6). The evolving nature of the available evidence and scientific understanding of the virus throughout the pandemic was acknowledged. For instance, one actor stated that, "I’ll say the response has been driven by the science; the science has been changing…from what I’ve seen, [it] has been a very science-based response" (IDI3).

Some actors narrowed in on certain policy decisions they believed were or were not evidence-informed. Policy decisions in 2020 that actors believed were directly informed by scientific data included the early decision to restrict informal, household gatherings; to keep schools open for in-person learning; to implement a business safety plan requirement across the province; and to delay the second vaccine dose for maximum efficacy. One provincial public health actor noted that an early 2020 decision made, within local jurisdictions, to close playgrounds was not based on scientific evidence. Further, the decision prompted public health decision-makers to centralize some decision-making to the provincial level, to address decisions being made 'on the ground' that were not based on scientific evidence (IDI16). Similarly, they added that the policy decision to require masking in schools was not based on scientific evidence; rather, "it's policy informed by the noise of your community." As parents and other groups within the community pushed for masking, this was "a policy decision to help schools stay open."

Early in the pandemic response, case data in local jurisdictions were reportedly used for monitoring and planning. These "numerator data" (IDI1), for instance case or hospitalization counts, were identified as being the primary mode of evidence used to inform decisions related to the implementation or easing of public health and social measures. The ability to generate epidemiological count data early in the pandemic due to efficient scaling up of PCR testing for COVID-19 was noted as a key advantage (IDI16). As the pandemic evolved in 2020, however, perspectives diverged in relation to the type of data that decision-makers relied on. For example, it was noted that BCCDC administered an online, voluntary survey to monitor unintended consequences of public health and social measures and inform targeted interventions. Opinions varied on whether this evidence was successfully applied in decision-making. One respondent emphasized this lack of application of evidence and perceived that public health orders were not informed by the level and type of evidence available, beyond case counts: "[In] a communicable disease crisis like a pandemic, the collateral impact slash damage is important and if you're going to be a public health institute, you actually have to bring those to the front, not just count cases" (IDI1).

There also existed some uncertainty and a perceived lack of transparency or clarity as to how or whether data analytic ‘entities’, such as BCCDC or research institutions, fed directly into decision-making. As a research actor shared, "I’m not sure that I know quite what all those channels really look like…I’m sure that there’s a lot of improvement that could be driven in terms of how we bring strong evidence to actual policy and practice" (IDI14). Another actor explicitly named the way information flowed into decision-making in the province as "organic" (IDI7). They also noted the lack of a formal, independent science advisory panel for BC’s COVID-19 response, which existed in other provincial and international jurisdictions. Relatedly, one regional health authority actor perceived that the committee that was convened to advise the province on research, and established for the purpose of applying research to the COVID-19 response, "should have focused more on knowledge translation, but too much time was spent commissioning research and asking what kinds of questions we needed to ask rather than looking at what was happening in other jurisdictions" (IDI6). Overall, multiple actors noted a lack of clarity around application of evidence and who is responsible for ensuring evidence is applied. As a BCCDC actor expressed, in relation to how to prevent transmission of COVID-19:

We probably knew most of the things that we needed to know about May of last year [2020]. So, to me, it’s not even what evidence you need to know about, but who’s responsible for making sure that you actually apply the evidence to the intervention? Because so many of our interventions have been driven by peer pressure and public expectation rather than what we know to be the case [scientifically] (IDI1).

Some described the significance of predictive disease modelling to understand the COVID-19 trajectory and inform decisions, as well as to demonstrate to the public the effectiveness of particular measures, which "help[ed] sustain our response" (IDI2). Others, however, perceived that "mathematical models were vastly overused [and] overvalued in decision-making around this pandemic" (IDI1) and that modellers stepped outside their realm of expertise in providing models and policy recommendations through the public media.

Overall, while many actors’ impressions were that the response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty with respect to how evidence actually flowed into decision-making processes, as well as what specific evidence was used and how. Participants noted various mechanisms created or already in place prior to COVID-19 that fed data into, and facilitated, decision-making. There was an acknowledgement that multiple forms of evidence—including scientific data, data on public perceptions, as well as public pressure—appeared to have influenced decision-making.

Interface between researchers and policy-makers

There was a general sense that the Ministry supported the use of scientific and research-based evidence specifically. Some actors identified particular Ministry personnel as being especially amenable to research and focused on data to inform decisions and implementation. More broadly, the government-research interface was characterized by one actor as an amicable one, a "research-friendly government", and that the Ministry of Health (MOH), specifically, has a research strategy whereby, "it’s literally within their bureaucracy to become a more evidence-informed organization" (IDI11). The MOH was noted to have funded a research network intended to channel evidence into health policy and practice, and which reported to the research side of the MOH.

Other actors perceived relatively limited engagement with the broader scientific community. Some perceived an overreliance on 'in-house expertise' or a "we can do that [ourselves] mentality" within government that precluded academic researchers’ involvement, as well as a sense of "not really always wanting to engage with academics to answer policy questions because they don’t necessarily see the value that comes" (IDI14). With respect to the role of research, an actor stated:

There needs to be a provincial dialogue around what evidence is and how it gets situated, because there’s been some tension around evidence being produced and not used or at least not used in the way that researchers think that it should be (IDI11).

Those involved in data analytics within the MOH acknowledged a challenge in making epidemiological data available to academic researchers, because "at the time, you’re just trying to get decisions made" (IDI7). Relatedly, a research actor described the rapid instigation of COVID-19 research and pivoting of academic research programs to respond to the pandemic, but perceived a slow uptake of these research efforts from the MOH and PHSA for decision-making and action. Nevertheless, they too acknowledged the challenge of using research evidence, specifically, in an evolving and dynamic pandemic:

I think we’ve got to be realistic about what research in a pandemic situation can realistically contribute within very short timelines. I mean, some of these decisions have to be made very quickly...they were intuitive decisions, I think some of them, rather than necessarily evidence-based decisions (IDI14).

Relatedly, perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform governance during the pandemic. Largely from Ministry stakeholders, and those within the PHSA, the impressions were that Ministry actors were relying on public health advice and scientific expertise. As one actor articulated, "[the] government actually respected and acknowledged and supported public health expertise" (IDI9). Others emphasized a "trust of the people who understood the problem" (IDI3)—namely, those within public health—and perceived that public health experts were enabled "to take a lead role in the health system, over politics" (IDI12). This perspective was not as widely held by those in the public health sector, as one public health actor expressed, "politicians and bureaucrats waded into public health practice in a way that I don't think was appropriate" and that, "in the context of a pandemic, it’s actually relatively challenging to bring true expert advice because there’s too many right now. Suddenly, everybody’s a public health expert, but especially bureaucrats and politicians." They went on to share that the independence of public health to speak and act—and for politicians to accept independent public health advice—needs to be protected and institutionalized as "core to good governance" (IDI1). Relatedly, an elected official linked this to the absence of a formal, independent science table to advise government and stated that, "I think we should have one established permanently. I think we need to recognize that politicians aren't always the best at discerning scientific evidence and how that should play into decision-making" (IDI15).

These results highlight the divergent perspectives participants had as to the interface between research and policy-making and a lack of understanding regarding process and roles.

Challenges in applying evidence to policy decisions

Perspectives converged with respect to the existence of numerous challenges with and barriers to applying evidence to health policy and decision-making. These related to the quality and breadth of available data, both in terms of absence and abundance. For instance, as one public health actor noted in relation to health policy-making, "you never have enough information. You always have an information shortage, so you're trying to make the best decisions you can in the absence of usually really clear information" (IDI8). On the other hand, as evidence emerged en masse across jurisdictions in the pandemic, there were challenges with synthesizing evidence in a timely fashion for 'real-time' decision-making. A regional health authority actor highlighted this challenge early in the COVID-19 pandemic and perceived that there was not a provincial group bringing new synthesized information to decision-makers on a daily basis (IDI6). Other challenges related to the complexity of the political-public health interface with respect to data and scientific expertise, which "gets debated and needs to be digested by the political process. And then decisions are made" (IDI5). This actor further expressed that debate among experts needs to be balanced with efficient crisis response, that one has to "cut the debate short. For the sake of expediency, you need to react."

It was observed that, in BC’s COVID-19 response, data was gathered from multiple sources with differing data collection procedures, and sometimes with conflicting results—for instance, 'health system data' analyzed by the PHSA and 'public health data' analyzed by the BCCDC. This was observed to present challenges from a political perspective in discerning "who’s actually getting the 'right' answers" (IDI7). An added layer of complexity was reportedly rooted in how to communicate such evidence to the public and "public trust in the numbers" (IDI7), particularly as public understanding of what evidence is, how it is developed, and why it changes, can influence public perceptions of governance.

Finally, as one actor from within the research sector noted, organizationally and governance-wise, the system was "not very well set up to actually use research evidence…if we need to do better at using evidence in practice, we need to fix some of those things. And we actually know what a lot of those things are." For example , "there’s no science framework for how organizations work within that" and " governments shy away from setting science policy " (IDI11). This challenge was framed as having a macro-level dimension, as higher-level leadership structures were observed to not incentivize the development and effective use of research among constituent organizations, and also micro-level implications. From their perspective, researchers will struggle without such policy frameworks to obtain necessary data-sharing agreements with health authorities, nor will they be able to successfully navigate other barriers to conducting action-oriented research that informs policy and practice.

Similarly, a research actor perceived that the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted pre-existing fragmentation, "a pretty disjointed sort of enterprise" in how research is organized in the province:

I think pandemics need strong leadership and I think pandemic research response needed probably stronger leadership than it had. And I think that’s to do with [how] no one really knew who was in charge because no one really was given the role of being truly in charge of the research response (IDI14).

This individual underscored that, at the time of the interview, there were nearly 600 separate research projects being conducted in BC that focused on COVID-19. From their perspective, this reflected the need for more centralized direction to provide leadership, coordinate research efforts, and catalyze collaborations.

Overall, respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy.

This study explored the use of evidence to inform early COVID-19 decision-making within British Columbia, Canada, from the perspectives of decision-makers themselves. Findings underscore the complexity of synthesizing and applying evidence (i.e., ‘scientific’ or research-based evidence most commonly discussed) to support public health policy in 'real-time', particularly in the context of public health crisis response. Despite a substantial and long-established literature on evidence-based clinical decision-making [ 23 , 24 ], understanding is more limited as to how public health crisis decision-making can be evidence-informed or evidence-based. By contributing to a growing global scholarship of retrospective examinations of COVID-19 decision-making processes [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], our study aimed to broaden this understanding and, thus, support the strengthening of public health emergency preparedness in Canada, and globally.

Specifically, based on our findings on evidence-based public health practice, we found that decision-makers clearly emphasized ‘evidence-based’ or ‘evidence-informed’ as meaning ‘scientific’ evidence. They acknowledged other forms of evidence such as professional expertise and contextual information as influencing factors. We identified four key points related to the process of evidence-use in BC's COVID-19 decision-making, with broader implications as well:

Role Differences: The tensions we observed primarily related to a lack of clarity among the various agencies involved as to their respective roles and responsibilities in a public health emergency, a finding that aligns with research on evidence-use in prior pandemics in Canada [ 29 ]. Relatedly, scientists and policy-makers experienced challenges with communication and information-flow between one another and the public, which may reflect their different values and standards, framing of issues and goals, and language [ 30 ].

Barriers to Evidence-Use: Coordination and consistency in how data are collected across jurisdictions reportedly impeded efficiency and timeliness of decision-making. Lancaster and Rhodes (2020) suggest that evidence itself should be treated as a process, rather than a commodity, in evidence-based practice [ 31 ]. Thus, shifting the dialogue from 'barriers to evidence use' to an approach that fosters dialogue across different forms of evidence and different actors in the process may be beneficial.

Use of Evidence in Public Health versus Medicine: Evidence-based public health can be conflated with the concept of evidence-based medicine, though these are distinct in the type of information that needs to be considered. While ‘research evidence’ was the primary type of evidence used, other important types of evidence informed policy decisions in the COVID-19 public health emergency—for example, previous experience, public values, and preferences. This concurs with Brownson’s (2009) framework of factors driving decision-making in evidence-based public health [ 32 ]. Namely, that a balance between multiple factors, situated in particular environmental and organizational context, shapes decision-making: 1) best available research evidence; 2) clients'/population characteristics, state, needs, values, and preferences; and 3) resources, including a practitioner’s expertise. Thus, any evaluation of evidence-use in public health policy must take into consideration this multiplicity of factors at play, and draw on frameworks specific to public health [ 33 ]. Moreover, public health decision-making requires much more attention to behavioural factors and non-clinical impacts, which is distinct from the largely biology-focused lens of evidence-based medicine.

Transparency: Many participants emphasized a lack of explanation about why certain decisions were made and a lack of understanding about who was involved in decisions and how those decisions were made. This point was confirmed by a recent report on lessons learned in BC during the COVID-19 pandemic in which the authors describe " the desire to know more about the reasons why decisions were taken " as a " recurring theme " (13:66). These findings point to a need for clear and transparent mechanisms for channeling evidence, irrespective of the form used, into public health crisis decision-making.

Our findings also pointed to challenges associated with the infrastructure for utilizing research evidence in BC policy-making, specifically a need for more centralized authority on the research side of the public health emergency response to avoid duplication of efforts and more effectively synthesize findings for efficient use. Yet, as a participant questioned, what is the realistic role of research in a public health crisis response? Generally, most evidence used to inform crisis response measures is local epidemiological data or modelling data [ 7 ]. As corroborated by our findings, challenges exist in coordinating data collection and synthesis of these local data across jurisdictions to inform 'real-time' decision-making, let alone to feed into primary research studies [ 34 ].

On the other hand, as was the case in the COVID-19 pandemic, a 'high noise' research environment soon became another challenge as data became available to researchers. Various mechanisms have been established to try and address these challenges amid the COVID-19 pandemic, both to synthesize scientific evidence globally and to create channels for research evidence to support timely decision-making. For instance: 1) research networks and collaborations are working to coordinate research efforts (e.g., COVID-END network [ 35 ]); 2) independent research panels or committees within jurisdictions provide scientific advice to inform decision-making; and 3) research foundations, funding agencies, and platforms for knowledge mobilization (e.g., academic journals) continue to streamline funding through targeted calls for COVID-19 research grant proposals, or for publication of COVID-19 research articles. While our findings describe the varied forms of evidence used in COVID-19 policy-making—beyond scientific evidence—they also point to the opportunity for further investments in infrastructure that coordinates, streamlines, and strengthens collaborations between health researchers and decision-makers that results in timely uptake of results into policy decisions.

Finally, in considering these findings, it is important to note the study's scope and limitations: We focused on evidence use in a single public health emergency, in a single province. Future research could expand this inquiry to a multi-site analysis of evidence-use in pandemic policy-making, with an eye to synthesizing lessons learned and best practices. Additionally, our sample of participants included only one elected official, so perspectives were limited from this type of role. The majority of participants were health officials who primarily referred to and discussed evidence as ‘scientific’ or research-based evidence. Further work could explore the facilitators and barriers to evidence-use from the perspectives of elected officials and Ministry personnel, particularly with respect to the forms of evidence—considered broadly—and other varied inputs, that shape decision-making in the public sphere. This could include a more in-depth examination of policy implementation and how the potential societal consequences of implementation factor into public health decision-making.

We found that the policy decisions made during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were perceived by actors in BC's response as informed by—not always based on—scientific evidence, specifically; however, decision-makers also considered other contextual factors and drew on prior pandemic-related experience to inform decision-making, as is common in evidence-based public health practice [ 32 ]. The respondents' experiences point to specific areas that need to be considered in planning for future public health emergencies, including information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination in how data are collected, and transparency in how decisions are made—all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Furthermore, shifting the discourse from evidence as a commodity to evidence-use as a process will be helpful in addressing barriers to evidence-use, as well as increasing understanding about the public health decision-making process as distinct from clinical medicine. Finally, there is a critical need for clear mechanisms that channel evidence (whether ‘scientific’, research-based, or otherwise) into health crisis decision-making, including identifying and communicating the decision-making process to those producing and synthesizing evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic experience is an opportunity to reflect on what needs to be done to guild our public health systems for the future [ 36 , 37 ]. Understanding and responding to the complexities of decision-making as we move forward, particularly with respect to the synthesis and use of evidence, can contribute to strengthening preparedness for future public health emergencies.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available to maintain the confidentiality of research participants.

The terms 'evidence-informed' and 'evidence-based' decision-making are used throughout this paper, though are distinct. The term 'evidence-informed' suggests that evidence is used and considered, though not necessarily solely determinative in decision-making [ 38 ].

The Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) works with the Ministry of Health (MOH) and regional health authorities to oversee the coordination and delivery of programs.

The Office of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) has binding legal authority in the case of an emergency, and responsibility to monitor the health of BC’s population and provide independent advice to Ministers and public offices on public health issues.

The British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) is a program of the PHSA and provides provincial and national disease surveillance, detection, treatment, prevention, and consultation.

Abbreviations

British Columbia

British Columbia Centre for Disease Control

Coronavirus Disease 2019

Medical Health Officer

Ministry of Health

Provincial Health Officer

Provincial Health Services Authority

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus—2

University of British Columbia

Rubin O, Errett NA, Upshur R, Baekkeskov E. The challenges facing evidence-based decision making in the initial response to COVID-19. Scand J Public Health. 2021;49(7):790–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Williams GA, Ulla Díez SM, Figueras J, Lessof S, Ulla SM. Translating evidence into policy during the COVID-19 pandemic: bridging science and policy (and politics). Eurohealth (Lond). 2020;26(2):29–48.

Google Scholar  

Vickery J, Atkinson P, Lin L, Rubin O, Upshur R, Yeoh EK, et al. Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives. BMJ Glob Heal. 2022;7(4):1–10.

Piper J, Gomis B, Lee K. “Guided by science and evidence”? The politics of border management in Canada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Polit Sci. 2022;4

Cairney P. The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: what does “Guided by the science” mean in practice? Front Polit Sci. 2021;3(March):1–14.

Colman E, Wanat M, Goossens H, Tonkin-Crine S, Anthierens S. Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries. BMJ Glob Heal. 2021;6(9):1–11.

Salajan A, Tsolova S, Ciotti M, Suk JE. To what extent does evidence support decision making during infectious disease outbreaks? A scoping literature review. Evid Policy. 2020;16(3):453–75.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cairney P. The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time. Br Polit. 2021;16(1):90–116.

Lancaster K, Rhodes T, Rosengarten M. Making evidence and policy in public health emergencies: lessons from COVID-19 for adaptive evidence-making and intervention. Evid Policy. 2020;16(3):477–90.

Yang K. What can COVID-19 tell us about evidence-based management? Am Rev Public Adm. 2020;50(6–7):706–12.

Parkhurst J. The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017.

Office of the Prime Minister. Minister of Health Mandate Letter [Internet]. 2021. https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2021/12/16/minister-health-mandate-letter

de Faye B, Perrin D, Trumpy C. COVID-19 lessons learned review: Final report. Victoria, BC; 2022.

First Nations Health Authority. Evolving vaccination plans is science in action: Dr. Bonnie Henry. First Nations Health Authority. 2021.

BC Stats. 2021 Sub-provincial population estimates highlights. Vol. 2021. Victoria, BC; 2022.

Michael Smith Health Research BC [Internet]. 2023. healthresearchbc.ca. Accessed 25 Jan 2023.

Michael Smith Health Research BC. SRAC [Internet]. 2023. https://healthresearchbc.ca/strategic-provincial-advisory-committee-srac/ . Accessed 25 Jan 2023.

Brubacher LJ, Hasan MZ, Sriram V, Keidar S, Wu A, Cheng M, et al. Investigating the influence of institutions, politics, organizations, and governance on the COVID-19 response in British Columbia, Canada: a jurisdictional case study protocol. Heal Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):1–10.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

DeCuir-Gunby JT, Marshall PL, McCulloch AW. Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: an example from a professional development research project. Field Methods. 2011;23(2):136–55.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(117):1–8.

Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 2000;39(3):124–30.

Sackett D. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;1245:555–8.

Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA Netw. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

Allin S, Fitzpatrick T, Marchildon GP, Quesnel-Vallée A. The federal government and Canada’s COVID-19 responses: from “we’re ready, we’re prepared” to “fires are burning.” Heal Econ Policy Law. 2022;17(1):76–94.

Bollyky TJ, Hulland EN, Barber RM, Collins JK, Kiernan S, Moses M, et al. Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: an exploratory analysis of infection and fatality rates, and contextual factors associated with preparedness in 177 countries, from Jan 1, 2020, to Sept 30, 2021. Lancet. 2022;6736(22):1–24.

Kuhlmann S, Hellström M, Ramberg U, Reiter R. Tracing divergence in crisis governance: responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared. Int Rev Adm Sci. 2021;87(3):556–75.

Haldane V, De Foo C, Abdalla SM, Jung AS, Tan M, Wu S, et al. Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):964–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rosella LC, Wilson K, Crowcroft NS, Chu A, Upshur R, Willison D, et al. Pandemic H1N1 in Canada and the use of evidence in developing public health policies—a policy analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2013;83:1–9.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Saner M. A map of the interface between science & policy. Ottawa, Ontario; 2007. Report No.: January 1.

Lancaster K, Rhodes T. What prevents health policy being “evidence-based”? New ways to think about evidence, policy and interventions in health. Br Med Bull. 2020;135(1):38–49.

Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175–201.

Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:119–27.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Khan Y, Brown A, Shannon T, Gibson J, Généreux M, Henry B, et al. Public health emergency preparedness: a framework to promote resilience. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–16.

COVID-19 Evidence Network to Support Decision-Making. COVID-END [Internet]. 2023. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/covid-end . Accessed 25 Jan 2023.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Moving forward from the COVID-19 pandemic: 10 opportunities for strengthening Canada’s public health systems. 2022.

Di Ruggiero E, Bhatia D, Umar I, Arpin E, Champagne C, Clavier C, et al. Governing for the public’s health: Governance options for a strengthened and renewed public health system in Canada. 2022.

Adjoa Kumah E, McSherry R, Bettany-Saltikov J, Hamilton S, Hogg J, Whittaker V, et al. Evidence-informed practice versus evidence-based practice educational interventions for improving knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior toward the application of evidence into practice: a comprehensive systematic review of undergraduate studen. Campbell Syst Rev. 2019;15(e1015):1–19.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to current and former members of the University of British Columbia Working Group on Health Systems Response to COVID-19 who contributed to various aspects of this study, including Shelly Keidar, Kristina Jenei, Sydney Whiteford, Dr. Md Zabir Hasan, Dr. David M. Patrick, Dr. Maxwell Cameron, Mahrukh Zahid, Dr. Yoel Kornreich, Dr. Tammi Whelan, Austin Wu, Shivangi Khanna, and Candice Ruck.

Financial support for this work was generously provided by the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Medicine (Grant No. GR004683) and Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies (Grant No. GR016648), as well as a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant (Grant No. GR019157). These funding bodies were not involved in the design of the study, the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Laura Jane Brubacher, Chris Y. Lovato, Veena Sriram, Michael Cheng & Peter Berman

School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

Laura Jane Brubacher

School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Veena Sriram

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CYL, PB, and VS obtained funding for and designed the study. LJB, MC, and PB conducted data collection. LJB and VS analyzed the qualitative data. CYL and LJB collaboratively wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Jane Brubacher .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This case study received the approval of the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Certificate # H20-02136). Participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Semi-structured interview guide [* = questions used for this specific study]

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Brubacher, L.J., Lovato, C.Y., Sriram, V. et al. The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01146-2

Download citation

Received : 08 February 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01146-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Decision-making
• Public health
• Policy-making
• Qualitative

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

6 Qualitative data examples for thorough market researchers

Types of qualitative data in market research, 6 qualitative data examples, get nuanced insights from qualitative market research.

There are plenty of ways to gather consumer insights for fresh campaigns and better products, but qualitative research is up there with the best sources of insight.

This guide is packed with examples of how to turn qualitative data into actionable insights, to spark your creativity and sharpen your research strategy. You’ll see how qualitative data, especially through surveys, opens doors to deeper understanding by inviting consumers to share their experiences and thoughts freely, in their own words — and how qualitative data can transform your brand.

Before we dig into some examples of how qualitative data can empower your teams to make focused, confident and quick decisions on anything from product to marketing, let’s go back to basics. We can categorize qualitative data into roughly three categories: binary, nominal and ordinal data. Here’s how each of them is used in qualitative data analysis.

Binary data

Binary data represents a choice between two distinct options, like ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In market research, this type of qualitative data is useful for filtering responses or making clear distinctions in consumer preferences.

Binary data in qualitative research is great for straightforward insights, but has its limits. Here’s a quick guide on when to use it and when to opt for qualitative data that is more detailed:

Binary data is great for:

• Quick Yes/No questions : like “Have you used our app? Yes or No.”
• Initial screening : to quickly sort participants for further studies.
• Clear-cut answers : absolute factors, such as ownership or usage.

Avoid binary data for:

• Understanding motivations : it lacks the depth to explore why behind actions.
• Measuring intensity : can’t show how much someone likes or uses something.
• Detail needed for product development : misses the nuanced feedback necessary for innovations.

Nominal data

Nominal data categorizes responses without implying any order. For example, when survey respondents choose their favorite brand from a list, the data collected is nominal, offering insights into brand preferences among different demographics.

Some other examples of qualitative data that can be qualified as nominal are asking participants to name their primary information source about products in categories like social media, friends, or online reviews. Or in focus groups, discussing brand perceptions could classify brands into categories such as luxury, budget-friendly, or eco-conscious, based on participant descriptions.

Nominal data is great for:

• Categorizing responses : such as types of consumer complaints (product quality, customer service, delivery issues).
• Identifying preferences : like favorite product categories (beverages, electronics, apparel).
• Segmentation : grouping participants based on attributes (first-time buyers, loyal customers).

Nominal data is not for:

• Measuring quantities : it can’t quantify how much more one category is preferred over another.
• Ordering or ranking responses : it doesn’t indicate which category is higher or lower in any hierarchy.
• Detailed behavioral analysis : While it can group behaviors, it doesn’t delve into the frequency or intensity of those behaviors.

Ordinal data

Ordinal data introduces a sense of order, ranking preferences or satisfaction levels. In qualitative analysis, it’s particularly useful for understanding how consumers prioritize features or products, giving researchers a clearer picture of market trends.

Other examples of qualitative data analyses that use ordinal data, are for instance a study on consumer preferences for coffee flavors, participants might rank flavors in order of preference, providing insights into flavor trends. You can also get ordinal data from focus groups on things like customer satisfaction surveys or app usability, by asking users to rate their ease of use or happiness on an ordinal scale.

Ordinal data is great for:

• Ranking preferences : asking participants to rank product features from most to least important.
• Measuring satisfaction levels : using scales like “very satisfied,” “satisfied,” “neutral,” “dissatisfied,” “very dissatisfied.”
• Assessing Agreement : with statements on a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Ordinal data is not for:

• Quantifying differences : it doesn’t show how much more one rank is preferred over another, just the order.
• Precise measurements : can’t specify the exact degree of satisfaction or agreement, only relative positions.

This mix of qualitative and quantitative data will give you a well-rounded view of participant attitudes and preferences.

The things you can do with qualitative data are endless. But this article shouldn’t turn into a work of literature, so we’ll highlight six ways to collect qualitative data and give you examples of how to use these qualitative research methods to get actionable results.

How to get qual insights with Attest

You can get to the heart of what your target customers think, with reliable qualitative insights from Attest Video Responses

1. Highlighting brand loyalty drivers with open-ended surveys and questionnaires

Open-ended surveys and questionnaires are great at finding out what makes customers choose and stick with a brand. Here’s why this qualitative data analysis tool is so good for gathering qualitative data on things like brand loyalty and customer experience:

Straight from the source

Open-ended survey responses show the actual thoughts and feelings of your target audience in their own words, while still giving you structure in your data analysis.

Understanding ‘why’

Numbers can show us how many customers are loyal; open-ended survey responses explain why they are. You can also easily add thematic analysis to the mix by counting certain keywords or phrases.

Guiding decisions

The insights from these surveys can help a brand decide where to focus its efforts, from making sure their marketing highlights what customers love most to improving parts of their product.

Surveys are one of the most versatile and efficient qualitative data collection methods out there. We want to bring the power of qualitative data analysis to every business and make it easy to gather qualitative data from the people who matter most to your brand. Check out our survey templates to hit the ground running. And you’re not limited to textual data as your only data source — we also enable you to gather video responses to get additional context from non verbal cues and more.

2. Trend identification with observation notes

Observation notes are a powerful qualitative data analysis tool for spotting trends as they naturally unfold in real-world settings. Here’s why they’re particularly valuable insights and effective for identifying new trends:

Real behavior

Observing people directly shows us how they actually interact with products or services, not just how they say they do. This can highlight emerging trends in consumer behavior or preferences before people can even put into words what they are doing and why.

Immediate insights

By watching how people engage with different products, we can quickly spot patterns or changes in behavior. This immediate feedback is invaluable for catching trends as they start.

Context matters

Observations give you context. You can see not just what people do, but where and how they do it. This context can be key to understanding why a trend is taking off.

Unprompted reactions

Since people don’t know they’re being observed for these purposes, their actions are genuine. This leads to authentic insights about what’s really catching on.

3. Understanding consumer sentiments through semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews for qualitative data analysis are an effective method for data analysts to get a deep understanding of consumer sentiments. It provides a structured yet flexible approach to gather in-depth insights. Here’s why they’re particularly useful for this type of research question:

Personal connection

These interviews create a space for a real conversation, allowing consumers to share their feelings, experiences, and opinions about a brand or product in a more personal setting.

Flexibility

The format lets the interviewer explore interesting points that come up during the conversation, diving deeper into unexpected areas of discussion. This flexibility uncovers richer insights than strictly structured interviews.

Depth of understanding

By engaging in detailed discussions, brands can understand not just what consumers think but why they think that way and what stations their train of thought passes by.

Structure and surprise

Semi-structured interviews can be tailored to explore specific areas of interest while still allowing for new insights to emerge.

4. Using focus groups for informing market entry strategies

Using a focus group to inform market entry strategies provides a dynamic way to discover your potential customers’ needs, preferences, and perceptions before launching a product or entering a new market. Here’s how focus groups can be particularly effective for this kind of research goal:

Real conversations

Focus groups allow for real-time, interactive discussions, giving you a front-row seat to hear what your potential customers think and feel about your product or service idea.

Diverse Perspectives

By bringing together people from various backgrounds, a focus group can offer a wide range of views and insights, highlighting different consumer needs and contextual information that you might miss out on in a survey.

Spotting opportunities and challenges

The dynamic nature of focus groups can help uncover unique market opportunities or potential challenges that might not be evident through other research methods, like cultural nuances.

Testing ideas

A focus group is a great way to test and compare reactions to different market entry strategies, from pricing models to distribution channels, providing clear direction on what approach might work best.

5. Case studies to gain a nuanced understanding of consumers on a broad level

Case studies in qualitative research zoom in on specific stories from customers or groups using a product or service, great for gaining a nuanced understanding of consumers at a broad level. Here’s why case studies are a particularly effective qualitative data analysis tool for this type of research goal:

In-depth analysis

Case studies can provide a 360-degree look at the consumer experience, from initial awareness to post-purchase feelings.

This depth of insight reveals not just what consumers do, but why they do it, uncovering motivations, influences, and decision-making processes.

Longitudinal insight

Case studies can track changes in consumer behavior or satisfaction over time, offering a dynamic view of how perceptions evolve.

This longitudinal perspective is crucial for giving context to the lifecycle of consumer engagement with a brand.

Storytelling power

The narrative nature of case studies — when done right — makes them powerful tools for communicating complex consumer insights in an accessible and engaging way, which can be especially useful for internal strategy discussions or external marketing communications.

6. Driving product development with diary studies

Diary studies are a unique qualitative research method that involves participants recording their thoughts, experiences, or behaviors over a period of time, related to using a product or service. This qualitative data analysis method is especially valuable for driving product development for several reasons:

Real-time insights

Diary studies capture real-time user experiences and feedback as they interact with a product in their daily lives.

This ongoing documentation provides a raw, unfiltered view of how a product fits into the user’s routine, highlighting usability issues or unmet needs that might not be captured in a one-time survey or interview.

Realistic user journey mapping

By analyzing diary entries, you can map out the entire user journey, identifying critical touch points where users feel delighted, frustrated, or indifferent.

This then enables you to implement targeted improvements and innovations at the moments that matter most.

Identifying patterns

Over the course of a diary study, patterns in behavior, preferences, and challenges can emerge, which is great for thematic analysis.

It can guide product developers to prioritize features or fixes that will have the most significant impact on user satisfaction, which is especially great if they don’t know what areas to focus on first.

Qualitative research brings your consumers’ voices directly to your strategy table. The examples we’ve explored show how qualitative data analysis methods like surveys, interviews, and case studies illuminate the ‘why’ behind consumer choices, guiding more informed decisions. Using these insights means crafting products and messages that resonate deeply, ensuring your brand not only meets but exceeds consumer expectations.

Customer Research Manager 

Related articles

Making it personal – using tech to build connections with consumers | diageo, panel discussion – future-proofing your brand with consumer insights, attest product release: multi-market | attest’s alyssa stringer, subscribe to our newsletter.

Fill in your email and we’ll drop fresh insights and events info into your inbox each week.

* I agree to receive communications from Attest. Privacy Policy .

You're now subscribed to our mailing list to receive exciting news, reports, and other updates!