The advantages of using qualitative methods include:

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Índice Show

Approaches to qualitative research
Qualitative research methods
Qualitative data analysis
Advantages of qualitative research
Disadvantages of qualitative research
Frequently asked questions about qualitative research

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research, which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

Qualitative research question examples

How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
How is anxiety experienced around the world?
How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Approaches to qualitative research

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography, action research, phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Qualitative research approaches

Approach	What does it involve?
Grounded theory	Researchers collect rich data on a topic of interest and develop theories inductively.
Ethnography	Researchers immerse themselves in groups or organizations to understand their cultures.
Action research	Researchers and participants collaboratively link theory to practice to drive social change.
Phenomenological research	Researchers investigate a phenomenon or event by describing and interpreting participants’ lived experiences.
Narrative research	Researchers examine how stories are told to understand how participants perceive and make sense of their experiences.

Qualitative research methods

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods. These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
Interviews: personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
Surveys: distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.

Research exampleTo research the culture of a large tech company, you decide to take an ethnographic approach. You work at the company for several months and use various methods to gather data:

You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data analysis

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative data analysis

Approach	When to use	Example
Content analysis	To describe and categorize common words, phrases, and ideas in qualitative data.	A market researcher could perform content analysis to find out what kind of language is used in descriptions of therapeutic apps.
Thematic analysis	To identify and interpret patterns and themes in qualitative data.	A psychologist could apply thematic analysis to travel blogs to explore how tourism shapes self-identity.
Textual analysis	To examine the content, structure, and design of texts.	A media researcher could use textual analysis to understand how news coverage of celebrities has changed in the past decade.
Discourse analysis	To study communication and how language is used to achieve effects in specific contexts.	A political scientist could use discourse analysis to study how politicians generate trust in election campaigns.

Advantages of qualitative research

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Disadvantages of qualitative research

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated. The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population.

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

Frequently asked questions about qualitative research

What are the main qualitative research approaches?

There are five common approaches to qualitative research:

Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

What is data collection?

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

Philipsen, H., & Vernooij-Dassen, M. (2007). Kwalitatief onderzoek: nuttig, onmisbaar en uitdagend. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Qualitative research: useful, indispensable and challenging. In: Qualitative research: Practical methods for medical practice (pp. 5–12). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Chapter Google Scholar
Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
Kelly, J., Dwyer, J., Willis, E., & Pekarsky, B. (2014). Travelling to the city for hospital care: Access factors in country aboriginal patient journeys. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22(3), 109–113.
Article Google Scholar
Nilsen, P., Ståhl, C., Roback, K., & Cairney, P. (2013). Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Science, 8(1), 1–12.
Article Google Scholar
Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou, P., Greenhalgh, T., Heneghan, C., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Phillips, B., & Thornton, H. (2011). The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/2011/06/2011-oxford-cebm-levels-evidence-introductory-document/.
Eakin, J. M. (2016). Educating critical qualitative health researchers in the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 107–118.
Article Google Scholar
May, A., & Mathijssen, J. (2015). Alternatieven voor RCT bij de evaluatie van effectiviteit van interventies!? Eindrapportage. In Alternatives for RCTs in the evaluation of effectiveness of interventions!? Final report.
Google Scholar
Berwick, D. M. (2008). The science of improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(10), 1182–1184.
CAS Article Google Scholar
Christ, T. W. (2014). Scientific-based research and randomized controlled trials, the “gold” standard? Alternative paradigms and mixed methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(1), 72–80.
Article Google Scholar
Lamont, T., Barber, N., Jd, P., Fulop, N., Garfield-Birkbeck, S., Lilford, R., Mear, L., Raine, R., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2016). New approaches to evaluating complex health and care systems. BMJ, 352:i154.
Drabble, S. J., & O’Cathain, A. (2015). Moving from Randomized Controlled Trials to Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluation. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 406–425). London: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS, 8, 117.
Article Google Scholar
Hak, T. (2007). Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Observation methods in qualitative research] (pp. 13–25). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Chapter Google Scholar
Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6(2), 36–40.
Article Google Scholar
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732.
Article Google Scholar
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks: Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
Article Google Scholar
van der Geest, S. (2006). Participeren in ziekte en zorg: meer over kwalitatief onderzoek. Huisarts en Wetenschap, 49(4), 283–287.
Article Google Scholar
Hijmans, E., & Kuyper, M. (2007). Het halfopen interview als onderzoeksmethode. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [The half-open interview as research method (pp. 43–51). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Chapter Google Scholar
Jansen, H. (2007). Systematiek en toepassing van de kwalitatieve survey. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Systematics and implementation of the qualitative survey (pp. 27–41). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Chapter Google Scholar
Pv, R., & Peremans, L. (2007). Exploreren met focusgroepgesprekken: de ‘stem’ van de groep onder de loep. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Exploring with focus group conversations: the “voice” of the group under the magnifying glass (pp. 53–64). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Google Scholar
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.
Article Google Scholar
Boeije H: Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen, [Analysis in qualitative research: Thinking and doing] vol. Den Haag Boom Lemma uitgevers; 2012.
Google Scholar
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015). Designing Multimethod Research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 185–205). London: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Archibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W. E. (2015). Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 5–33.
Article Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a Mixed Methods Design. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50–52.
CAS Article Google Scholar
O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(9), 1245–1251.
Article Google Scholar
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.
Article Google Scholar
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18.
Article Google Scholar
Marlett, N., Shklarov, S., Marshall, D., Santana, M. J., & Wasylak, T. (2015). Building new roles and relationships in research: A model of patient engagement research. Quality of Life Research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 24(5), 1057–1067.
Article Google Scholar
Demian, M. N., Lam, N. N., Mac-Way, F., Sapir-Pichhadze, R., & Fernandez, N. (2017). Opportunities for engaging patients in kidney research. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 4, 2054358117703070–2054358117703070.
Article Google Scholar
Noyes, J., McLaughlin, L., Morgan, K., Roberts, A., Stephens, M., Bourne, J., Houlston, M., Houlston, J., Thomas, S., Rhys, R. G., et al. (2019). Designing a co-productive study to overcome known methodological challenges in organ donation research with bereaved family members. Health Expectations. 22(4):824–35.
Article Google Scholar
Piil, K., Jarden, M., & Pii, K. H. (2019). Research agenda for life-threatening cancer. European Journal Cancer Care (Engl), 28(1), e12935.
Article Google Scholar
Hofmann, D., Ibrahim, F., Rose, D., Scott, D. L., Cope, A., Wykes, T., & Lempp, H. (2015). Expectations of new treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: Developing a patient-generated questionnaire. Health Expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 18(5), 995–1008.
Article Google Scholar
Jun, M., Manns, B., Laupacis, A., Manns, L., Rehal, B., Crowe, S., & Hemmelgarn, B. R. (2015). Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: A scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 2, 35.
Article Google Scholar
Elsie Baker, S., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? In National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183.
CAS Article Google Scholar
Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619–634.
Article Google Scholar

Page 2

Types of research problems	Data collection	Data analysis
• Assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change) • What works for whom when, how and why? • Focussing on intervention improvement	• Document study• Observations (participant or non-participant)• Interviews (especially semi-structured) • Focus groups	• Transcription of audio-recordings and field notes into transcripts and protocols• Coding of protocols • Using qualitative data management software
Mixed and multi-method	How to assess	How not to assess
• Combinations of quantitative and/or qualitative methods, e.g.: • convergent parallel: quali and quanti in parallel • explanatory sequential: quanti followed by quali • exploratory sequential: quali followed by quanti	• Checklists• Reflexivity• Sampling strategies• Piloting• Co-coding• Member checking • Stakeholder involvement	• Protocol adherence• Sample size• Randomization• Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks” • Not being quantitative research