TOPIC: Qualitative research is often said to be without structure, process and rigor. Discuss.

NAME: Jepter Lorde

SUBJECT: Qualitative Research Methods

ABSTRACT

The continued academic tension between qualitative and quantitative inquiry has

continued unabated. Scholarship since the 1980s, to redefine both paradigms,

attempt to bring balance and importance of the respective contribution of both

research processes. This has resulted in an interesting shift for “ensuring structure,

process and rigor” from the investigator’s actions during the course of the research,

to the reader of the qualitative inquiry. The emphasis on Quantitative strategies

implemented during the research process has been replaced by truth value,

applicability, consistency, and neutrality implemented once a study is completed.

This essay argues that while reliability and validity remain appropriate concepts for

attaining rigor in qualitative research the criterion used must not be borrowed from

the Quantitative paradigm. Reference is primarily made to Guba 1981 to explain

the alternatives. This essay argues for a clear recognition of the values of both the

Qualitative and Quantitative processes showing that each offers a specific solution

to research with each being judged on its own merit.

INTRODUCTION

In the broadest sense of the word, the definition of research includes any gathering

of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge. Martyn

Shuttleworth (2008). On its own, however, the definition though adequate is not

sufficient in an effort to show the depth and richness of the Qualitative process. For

this attention is paid to Bruce Berg (2001) who clearly articulated the following:

“Quality refers to the what, how, when, and where of a thing, its

essence and ambience. Qualitative research thus refers to the

meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols,

and descriptions of things.”

The imperative, therefore, of this essay given Berg (2001) definition will be

an examination of the reasons for the criticisms levelled against Qualitative

Research, testing of the criticisms to ascertain validity and determining

acceptance or rejection of the claim ‘Qualitative research is often said to be

without structure, process and rigor.’

STRUCTURE

Research has been identified to a greater extent as purely a scientific process, the

researcher is able to gather the data, after securing the sample and by way of

statistical analysis make some generalisation based on that sample. The scientific

process is one of systemic enquiry, series of stages and logical sequence. Almost

immediately without prior knowledge of the discipline an observer will notice a

strong tendency toward structure. Alfred Politz a staunch defender of quantitative

research bluntly stated “If the research is not Quantitative then it could not be

considered research.” The structure to which Politz and other critics refer is based

on how data is handled during the qualitative research process. Admittedly, if the

process was quantitative in nature then the answer to the question of organization

and analysis would be easy (structure). The data would be reduced to computer

readable form and entered into a database. The application of packaged statistics

for the social sciences used to analyze the data utilised.

Lamentably, qualitative data are not as quickly or easily handled. The common

mistake made by many inexperienced or uninformed researchers is a reduction of

qualitative data to symbolic numeric representations and the quantitative

application of computer analysis. Berg (2001) and as Berg (1993) state, this ceases

at once to be qualitative research and amounts to little more than a variation of

quantitative data collection.

Qualitative research although challenged at this stage is not without a workable

solution and defenders. Ernest Dichter, a strong proponent of qualitative research

stressed “Ten thousand times nothing is still (nothing)!” Dichter was attempting to

argue that mere quantification was not enough as long as the underlying behaviour

is not well understood and therefore will not lead to meaningful results. The

analysis of data focuses on patterns of interaction seeks knowledge about a group

or culture or explores the life world of individuals. The techniques applied while

not statistical software driven offers an accepted structured approach in data

analysis. (Naresh K Malhotra 2010)

Content analysis is the major approach to analyzing qualitative data it is “a

systematic research method for analyzing textual information in a standardized

way that allows evaluators to make inferences about that information. (Weber,

1990) “A central idea in content analysis is that the many words of the text are

classified into much fewer content categories.” (Weber 1990) the essential result is

an attempt at harvesting important themes without losing the richness of meaning

by way of numeric analysis. It is clear therefore that qualitative research has the

means with which results can be achieved without lost to structure.

PROCESS

To be scientific, as mentioned earlier, is to have engaged systemic enquiry, series

of stages and logical sequence, simply put a course of action or process that on

completion would yield results reflecting the phenomenon observed. Quantitative

research to a greater extent has occupied this position of authority not only by its

use of numerical data but the ability of the research when executed, using the afore

mentioned steps, should allow or permit another researcher to arrive at similar

conclusions using the same process (Krueger 1974), is it then reasonable to

conclude that Qualitative research fails in its attempt at processes that would

garner the same results? Admittedly, this criticism is not without merit, but for the

wrong reasons. The process taking place within the qualitative study is primarily

exploratory and seeking to determine answers from, to a greater extent, a non-

numeric data set. In attempting to give voice to the subject interpretation must be

made and it is at this point that its subjectivity is questioned. Social action is far

from static and therefore near impossible to repeat given the complexities of

human nature. What is evident is a clear determination at process by the

Qualitative research method at research question generation, theoretical

construction, hypothesis, data collection and analysis. If the criticism is one of lack

of consistent reproduction of results based on the subject then that to some extent

the criticism is valid, however if it attacks the process as set out then the argument

is to a greater extent invalid due to the variability of human action.

RIGOR

The terms reliability and validity traditionally have been associated with

quantitative research and the rigor of the method. The examination of data for

reliability and validity allows for a determination of both the objectivity and

credibility of the research. Already it is observed that based on the definition

Qualitative research would be hard pressed to match the assessment, or is it? The

validity of research findings refers to the extent to which the findings are an

accurate representation of the phenomena they are intended to represent. The

reliability of a study refers to the reproducibility of the findings. (Malhotra 2010)

Within the context of Quantitative research validity can be substantiated by

triangulation use of contradictory evidence, respondent validation, and constant

comparison.

Again Qualitative research has a defender in Guba (1981) whose model which is

based on the identification of four aspects of ‘trustworthiness’ that are relevant to

both quantitative and qualitative studies: (a) truth value, (b) applicability, (c)

consistency, and (d) neutrality. Based on the philosophical differences between

qualitative and quantitative approaches, the model defines different strategies of

assessing these criteria in each type of research. These strategies are important to

researchers in designing ways of increasing the rigor of their qualitative studies

and also for readers to use as a means of assessing the value of the findings of

qualitative research. Guba argued that these criteria must be defined differently for

qualitative and quantitative research based on the philosophical and conceptual

divergence of the two approaches. Given the assessment by Guba one, therefore,

would be hard pressed to vilify Qualitative research as not possessing the

necessary rigor.

There is some accuracy to the fact that, qualitative methodologies have not

dominated the social sciences. This is not without reason, qualitative research takes

much longer, requires greater clarity of objectives during design, and cannot be

analyzed by statistical software. Nonetheless, as Bogdan (1972) makes clear,

qualitative research has left its mark conceptually and theoretically on the social

sciences. The lasting contributions to social understanding from qualitative

research, as well as the sheer number of contributing social thinkers are significant.

It is clear that the essence of qualitative research is seldom questioned in the

abstract, however its practice is criticised for being non-scientific and thus invalid.

Is it therefore fair to draw this conclusion as critics tended to lose sight of the

probability factor inherent in quantitative practices and replaced it with an

assumption of certainty? (Berg 2001) It is therefore the opinion of this essay that

one need not dismiss the entire qualitative school of thought because some studies

inadequately applied the paradigm and methods and therefore conclude that

Qualitative research is not without structure, process and rigor.

WORKS CITED

Babbie, Earl, “The Practice of Social Research”: Albany Wadsworth Publishing Company: 2003

Berg, Bruce L, “Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences 4th Edition”: New Jersey: Pearson Publishing 2001

Bogdan R,. “Participant Observation in Organisational Settings”: Syracuse, N.Y Syracuse University Press 1972

Guba, Egon G. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. “Effective evaluation”: San Francisco Jossey-Bass Publishers 1981

Malhotra, K,. “Marketing Research, An Applied Orientation (6th ed.)”: New

Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall 2010

Shuttleworth Martyn and Blakstad Oskar, "How to write a Research Paper": Lulu Enterprises Inc 2010

Weber, Robert, “Basic Content Analysis. 2nd ed”: Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1990