Chapter 4. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

Objective 1 – Introduce observation and its types.

Objective 2 – Give guidance on the use of different types of interview.

Objective 3 – Elaborate the use of a focus group interview.

Objective 4 – Explain the essentials of the biographical research method.

Objective 5 – Explain the use of qualitative surveys.

Qualitative observation is the observation in which the researcher takes field notes on the behavior and activities of individuals at the research site, in an unstructured or semistructured way (using some prior questions that the researcher wants to find the answers to). Qualitative observers may engage in a variety of roles from a non-participant to a complete participant.

Observation in its narrowest sense is the oldest and most natural method of collecting facts, significantly improved nowadays. Simple observation is unsystematic, unplanned, random, imprecise, and instead of obtaining accurate data, the observer gets only insufficiently arranged impressions. The beginnings of science in ancient Greece were based on observation. From biology to history, and from Aristotle to Herodotus, the eyes played an important role in registering the phenomena and events of the natural and social world. This is even more evident in modern sciences, such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc., whose development and differentiation actually began with observations directed at various elements of the subject reality (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 103). As a specific method, observation spread to social sciences, although it was developing in them as well, primarily in history and psychology. Therefore, it is used as one of the basic data collection methods in all sciences, from economics to sociology.

Unlike the common-sense, vulgar observation, with which it shares some common features and origins, scientific observation is defined as a planned and systematic collection of facts through the direct sensory perception of social phenomena. The plan or system has a number of features. First of all, it implies orchestrated observation, which further implies the creation of all the conditions related to a certain system, and order in conducting the observation, which ensures overcoming voluntarism and arbitrariness of the procedure. Then it implies the precision, which refers to the fulfillment of all the norms that determine the accuracy of the measurement of sensory perceptions. Finally, there is the objectivity of observation, which is also achieved by means of norms that guide the observer’s personal wishes and aspirations. The aim is to record details in as objective a manner as possible, by avoiding interpretations and inferences, and by setting aside one’s own preconceptions (Angrosino, 2007, p. 42). The specific nature of observation therefore lies in the procedures developed to control it so that it can yield fruitful scientific results (Pečujlić, 1982, p. 103).

Group interviews are administered to groups of people (usually 6–12 members) selected particularly for the purpose of the ongoing research. The same interviews are administered to different people and therefore different attitudes and responses to a specific topic are obtained. During the group brainstorming, the participants think together, inspire and challenge each other, and react to the emerging issues and points (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 144). Later on, similarities and differences between the obtained responses are analysed.

The process of the focus group research includes:

• the selection of the topic – the topic has to be important to participants, and they are supposed to have some knowledge about it. However, some topics may seem safe to the interviewer, but are very sensitive to participants. According to Farquhar and Das (1999), all research topics have the potential to be sensitive because the sensitivity of a topic is not fixed but socially constructed;
• the selection of participants – the participants’ characteristics should be in line with the interview objectives and the topic discussed. Focus group participants are not selected by means of systematic random sampling. Given that the success of a group depends on the dynamics between group members, the group composition should be carefully considered by the researcher. The interaction between participants is a key feature of the focus group method, and there has to be sufficient diversity to encourage discussion. However, too heterogeneous groups may result in a conflict. So, researchers have to be familiar with the differences, aware of the potential problems, and have the strategies to deal with them, and even then, the researcher will not be able to anticipate or control the direction of the group discussion (Bloor et al. 2001, p. 20);
• organisation – all the relevant participants for a specific topic should be organised at the same time, and at the same venue;
• implementation – the group moderator should be experienced and competent for such a type of interview. The objective of the focus group research is not to elicit the group’s answers to pre-determined questions, but to stimulate discussion, and through subsequent analysis, understand the meanings and norms that underlie the group answers. Hence, instead of being asked to answer a question, the group may be required to perform a specific task, such as a ranking exercise, or description of a photograph (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 43). For the successful implementation of the focus group research, the role of the researcher is very important. Control is necessary, but the researcher should facilitate the group discussion, not control it, as the group interaction may be distorted by too much external control. At the same time, the facilitator must avoid the domination of the group by individual members, and also seek to encourage contributions from the more timorous ones (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 49). Silences may be quite embarrassing for facilitators, but there are certain things they can do to break them, such as commenting on non-verbal clues (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 52).
• recording – most often, audio-video recordings are made;
• analysis – a quality analysis of the collected material, during which the moderator’s presence is mandatory. According to Bloor et al. (2001, p. 59), the transcription of the recording of the focus group discussion is mandatory for academic research, as simple listening to the recording or the memory of the moderator may lead to the loss of much of the richness of the data, and will risk a selective and superficial analysis. On the other hand, the data that focus group discussions produce are chaotic because people often talk at once, sentences remain unfinished, people misinterpret other’s comments, their arguments develop as they discuss the topic, etc. Therefore, all the recorded speech should be transcribed, which means all the speakers, if more than one person is talking, not just the dominant voice, the unfinished or interrupted speech, very brief extracts of speech, even laughter, and body language, etc. Moreover, the speaker should be identified (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 72). In order to make this possible, Bloor et al. (2002) suggest that, as the first group exercise, people be asked to say their name, and tell a few sentences about themselves, which can serve as a reference point or a basis for the identification during the transcription. Moreover, the quantity of data is overwhelming, whereas the analysis must be systematic and rigorous, reflecting the views of all cases, not only those that fit the researcher’s own agenda (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 62);
• reporting – the research findings are properly transformed into reports.

The analysis of the data collected by means of interviews comprises the following elements:

• generating codes;
• designing analytic concepts;
• identifying patterns within the concepts;
• producing an explanation;
• moving forwards-backwards – constantly moving from the beginning to the end of the text and vice versa.

By coding, data are selected, connected, and theories are selected. From the process of coding, classes of phenomena and a clearly defined concept are obtained. Open coding is the initial procedure, which brings the elementary order into a huge amount of information. Focused coding is the process of removing less productive and less important codes, and focusing on a smaller number of key selected codes. A code is good if it contains a clear label, defined topic, description which explains when exactly something related to the topic appeared, as well as positive and negative examples in order to avoid confusion.

When documenting behaviour, focus groups are less suitable than individual interviews because there is a tendency for atypical behaviour to be unreported or under-reported in group settings, especially when groups are to reach a consensus on a given topic (Bloor et al., 2001, p. 8). The advantages of group interviews involve social orientation, flexibility, validity, clarity, efficiency, practicality, whereas the disadvantages include a lack of control, difficult data analyses, heterogeneity of groups, complex organization.

Qualitative surveys use open-ended questions eliciting long, written answers with an aim to reveal opinions, experiences, narratives or accounts. They are often a useful precursor to interviews or focus groups as they help identify themes or issues that should be further explored in the research. The main aim of a qualitative survey is not to establish frequencies, means or other parametres, but to determine the diversity of some topic of interest within a given population – it is a study of diversity, not distribution, in a population (Jansen,  2010).

Qualitative surveys may be inductive (open) or deductive (pre-structured). In inductive surveys, relevant objects/topics, dimensions and categories are identified through the interpretation of raw data, whereas in deductive ones, the diversity to be studied is defined beforehand, and the aim of a descriptive analysis is only to see which of the pre-defined characteristics exist empirically in the population under study. Though qualitative researchers equate qualitative research with induction, Jansen (2010) underlines that pre-structured surveys focused on the diversity analysis as opposed to the numerical distribution are considered qualitative research, too.

As the aim of a qualitative survey is to study the diversity of a phenomenon within the target population, the diversity sample should be purposefully selected, with an aim to cover all existing varieties of the phenomenon (saturation).

The data collection is generally conducted by questioning people, whereas the researcher wants to find out about the relationships between the characteristics of units, i.e. the patterns of categories, in order to explain the diversity in the subject of study. Three main methods of administering qualitative surveys are as follows:

• face-to-face surveys – the researcher asks the participant one or more open-ended questions, and observes the participant’s reactions, which enables them to ask follow-up questions to elicit a more detailed response. These surveys are audio recorded and transcribed.
• telephone surveys – the researcher asks the participant one or more questions, but cannot see their facial or behavioural responses, thus missing potential cues for asking follow-up questions.
• online surveys – open-ended questions are presented to participants in writing via email, often alongside quantitative research questions on the same topic. Some contextual information or key definitions may be provided to frame the participants’ perception of the questions. Diverse responses are usually obtained (from brief to detailed, vague).

The advantage of a survey over an interview relates to the fact that a lot of people can be questioned at the same time; it can be sent by e-mail, thus collecting data from a wider region. It is also cost-effective. However, the reliability of responses depends on the repondents’ sincerety, whereas questions can be misleading/leading, eliciting answers that are not core to the research subject. Questions must be as neutral as possible in order not to reveal the researcher’s expectations.

In order to ensure the success of a survey, it is important to describe its purpose politely at the top of the questionnaire. The fact that the survey is anonymous should be emphasised, as well as the fact that the responses will be used only for the research purposes, and that the aim of the questionnaire is not to test the respondents’ knowledge and therefore there cannot be correct or incorrect answers. It is important to state that the respondents should feel free to express their opinions or attitudes.

Angrosino, M. (2011). Doing Etnographic and Observational Research. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research: Introducing qualitative methods. Sage.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farquhar, C., & Das, R. (1999). Are focus groups suitable for 'sensitive' topics? In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 47–63). Sage Publications Ltd.

Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(1), Article 24152.

Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(2).

Krulj, R. S. (2007). Uvod u metodologiju pedagoških istraživanja sa statistikom. Učiteljski fakultet, Centar za naučno-istraživački rad.

Mužić, V. (1977). Metodologija pedagoškog istraživanja. Svjetlost, Zavod za udžbenike.

Pečujlić, M. (1982). Metodologija društvenih nauka. Savremena administracija.

Pečujlić, M., & Milić, V. (1995). Metodologija društvenih nauka. Grafika.

Poleti-Ćosić, D. (2019). Biographical method and its use in the field of migration studies. Sociologija, 62(1), 24–41.

Ševkušić, S. (2008). Kvalitativna studija slučaja u pedagoškim istraživanjima: Saznajne mogućnosti i ograničenja. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 40(2), Beograd, 2008.