http://qhr.sagepub.com/ 

Qualitative Health Research

http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/15/8/1003.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1049732305280771

2005 15: 1003Qual Health ResJanice M. Morse

Qualitative Research Is Not a Modification of Quantitative Research  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Qualitative Health ResearchAdditional services and information for     

http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:  

http://qhr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010qhr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10.1177/1049732305280771QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2005Morse / EDITORIAL

Editorial

Qualitative Research Is Not a Modificationof Quantitative Research

I was dismayed to see when reviewing an undergraduate research text—one ofthe enlightened ones that give qualitative research equal time in the curricu-

lum—that qualitative inquiry was being taught in parallel to quantitative research.In fact, this text was intended for students learning qualitative and quantitative inthe same research class. The text, with an underlying philosophy of equality, pre-sented the student with one chapter on quantitative and then one on the same topicin qualitative. For instance, students were supposed to be taught sampling forquantitative research, then sampling for qualitative, then move on to some othertopic in the research process, learning first quantitative conventions, thenqualitative.

This seems to be rather like learning about several cultures at once in an anthro-pology class—by discussing first a particular belief, custom, or way of doing some-thing in one culture, then the same in a second culture, with the discussion of eachquite removed from the cultural context or from other norms and practices.

But it also raises the question of how qualitative inquiry should be taught. Itforces us reflect on how we actually learned qualitative inquiry.

Most of us were probably first schooled in quantitative inquiry. In North Amer-ica, even today, quantitative inquiry is considered essential in undergraduate andgraduate programs; qualitative inquiry is considered a luxury, something to beadded to the curriculum only if there is space and if there is time. In this light, the“equal time” philosophy in the above research text makes it appear enlightened.Some of us had minimal formal training in qualitative work, took a notebook, andheaded for the field. Others may have had an extensive number of classes on quali-tative inquiry—much theory and little practice—before working on our own. Oth-ers, the lucky ones, may have had both, classroom theory and mentoring with asenior researcher on a project, as preparation for their own research.

There is no doubt that the resources for those who wish to learn qualitativeinquiry have changed. There are now numerous texts available on most topics andmethods, of various quality, and differing learning philosophies. There are work-shops and short courses available for those who are willing to make the effort tolearn. And there is usually support within most departments from at least a few fac-ulty doing qualitative research. In other words, there are ample opportunities forthose who wish to become good qualitative researchers, should they desire to do so.

We should, therefore, be moving forward in great strides, but there are indica-tors that we are not out of the woods yet. How, for instance, can such a widely usedtext introduce such a peculiar approach to teaching qualitative inquiry? Why has

1003

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, Vol. 15 No. 8, October 2005 1003-1005DOI: 10.1177/1049732305280771© 2005 Sage Publications

by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010qhr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

this not been questioned by reviewers and those of us using the text? What are theassumptions underlying the various modes of learning qualitative research? Thefollowing are simply my best guess.

Assumption 1: There Is a Clear Link BetweenQualitative and Quantitative Research

One is the converse of the other. Qualitative research is simply another way of doingthings, a different way of getting to the same goal. From this perspective, if youunderstand sampling quantitatively, then you simply learn new strategies tounderstand qualitative research.

This stymies me. I cannot understand how a quantitative researcher could pos-sibly appreciate qualitative sampling strategies without understanding qualitativeanalytic processes and goals. Furthermore, as the principles and rationale of quali-tative sampling directly contradict the principles of quantitative sampling, directcomparison of the two (and learning the quantitative first) makes qualitativemethods appear weak, easy, and simplistic.

Assumption 2: Knowing Quantitative ResearchHelps You Learn and/or Understand Qualitative

These folks believe that if they are good quantitative researchers, understanding,doing, and evaluating qualitative research is just a matter of learning a few morerules or strategies. They do not realize that qualitative inquiry is a whole new way ofthinking, that qualitative strategies do not stand alone, and that qualitative researchmethods are cohesive and consistent sets of procedures that cannot and should notbe separated from the whole. I do not believe you can become a qualitativeresearcher operating from a comparative framework, bouncing off and simplymaking adjustments to quantitative norms and principles. Understanding quanti-tative research helps me explain qualitative research to quantitative researchers, butit does not help me do qualitative research.

Assumption 3: Quantitative Researchers Can LearnQualitative Research Simply by Trying It

Overheard at a workshop from the row behind me:

Have you tried this yet, Marg?Yes, and I must say I am getting very good at it!

Can one learn qualitative inquiry by trial and error? Perhaps, but it must be a veryslow and unnecessarily painful process.

I believe we are most vulnerable to quantitative qualitative research in the areasof mixed-method designs. Here, qualitative components have often been added onto meet RFP (request for proposals) requirements or at the urging of a committeeduring the revision of a proposal.

1004 QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2005

by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010qhr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

But are these research efforts, or the efforts of researchers “trying it,” any good?I do not know—how can I know? I only know that QHR has a very high rejectionrate, and most often these rejections occur because of methodological problems: Thesample is not saturated or has been randomly selected; a framework has been usedinappropriately; the methods “approach,” or the researchers do not carefullyadhere to the method being used; or the writing is distinctly quantitative, withmany things counted, and so forth, when counting is meaningless. All shades ofquantitative approaches to qualitative inquiry.

There may be other problems not listed here, but one more time, the onus is onus, on qualitative researchers, to monitor and to control the teaching of our methodsand how these methods are communicated to others.

QHR has a started a new section, Teaching Matters, to provide a forum for suchdiscussion, and I hope this editorial will urge some of you to address these impor-tant issues. Perhaps I am preaching to the choir, but our journal can at least help usbecome conscious of all of these important issues, look about, become aware ofwhat is happening in our own institutions, with our own students, and proactivelymold our own discipline. The first message we need to give, loud and clear, is thatqualitative inquiry is not a variation of quantitative research.

JANICE M. MORSEEditor

Morse / EDITORIAL 1005

by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010qhr.sagepub.comDownloaded from