Dion Ginanto
A research methodology is the heart of the scientific study. It is the research methodology which makes a paper a “non-ordinary” paper. Myers (2009) defines the research method as a strategy of inquiry, which moves from the underlying assumptions to research design and data collection. There are two prominent methods in research: qualitative and quantitative. The basic difference between the two is that quantitative focuses on numbers and statistics; while qualitative generates words as data for analysis. Neither of these methods is better than the other. Both qualitative and quantitative can alternate each other; even these two can be combined. This paper, however, focuses on the qualitative method, and answers the following questions: 1) What is qualitative research? 2) Why qualitative research? And 3) What methods are used in collecting data in qualitative research?
What is Qualitative Research?
The qualitative research is stressing on quality rather than quantity. It means that the population of the data collected in qualitative research will not as many as in the quantitative research. Therefore, this method allows a researcher to dig deeper on the data, to build more relationships, and to spend more time in the field we study. Because of the closeness of the observer and to the field research, Denzin & Lincoln (1994) defines qualitative research as a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It means that qualitative researcher is expected to eliminate the barrier, and to decrease the gap between researchers and the data they study.
Patton (2002) defined qualitative research as an attempt to understand the unique interactions in a particular situation. The purpose is not to predict what might occur, rather to understand in-depth the characteristics of the situation and the meaning brought by participants and what is happening to them at the moment. The aim of qualitative research is to truthfully present findings to others who are interested in what a researcher is doing. In addition, Glesne (2011) asserted that a qualitative researcher often seeks to make sense of actions, narratives, and the ways in which they intersect. These definitions are therefore giving us a clear difference between qualitative and quantitative, where quantitative is often aimed to make a prediction to a treatment that a researcher conduct to a certain situation.
To make a better understanding of qualitative research, (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992) asked qualitative researchers to answers the following questions into their research: 1) Why people behave the way they do? 2) How opinions and attitudes are framed?; 3) How people are affected by the events that go on around them? 4) How and why cultures have developed in the way they have? 5) What are the differences between social groups or between males and females? By answering these questions, we are expected to better understand social aspects of our worlds. Thus, it is clear that qualitative method is answering the question of the “how” and the “why” rather than the “what” (Meriam, 1999). Further, Greenhalgh and Taylor (1997) defined qualitative research in a more concise definition, they argued that “researchers who use qualitative methods seeks a deeper truth. They aim to study things in natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them, and they use perspective that preserves the complexities of human behavior.”
Why Qualitative Research?
There are several critiques on qualitative research such as qualitative research is just a story telling, or qualitative is more subjective than quantitative method, or qualitative uses small sample/population. In answering this, I argue that how come a study is called story telling where a researcher uses scientific methods in collecting and analyzing the data? How come a scientific paper is called a story telling, where a researcher interprets a phenomenon beyond numbers, such as gestures, body language, accent, etc. Yes, we use a small population, but we use a longer time to gather and analyze the data. We sacrifice our times and comfort zone in order to immerse ourselves to the people we study, and in order to gain a deeper understanding toward the phenomena we observed. Objectivity and subjectivity are difficult to be justified. Ratner (2002) contended that “objectivity presupposes an independent reality that can be grasped. If there is no independent reality, or if reality cannot be apprehended, or if reality is merely the concoction of the observer, then the notion of objectivity is moot.” Those who judge qualitative research paper as a story telling and as a subjective method are because they have not understood the definition and the concept of qualitative research.
One reason to use qualitative research is when we want to study a phenomenon in more in-depth information that may be difficult to convey quantitatively. Further, Hoepfl (1997) and Strauss & Corbin (1990) argued that any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification, and then we will use a qualitative method. Even though we want to see a small phenomenon and in a small scope of population, as long as we value quality and in-depth approach, then the qualitative method is the choice.
What Techniques are used in Collecting Data in Qualitative Methods?
There are several techniques in collecting data in qualitative research including interviews, questionnaires, observations, focus group discussion, data analysis, and literature reviews. This paper will focus only on two techniques, which are commonly used by researches. I will also use these two techniques in gathering data for my future research: observations and interviews.
1. Observations.
Observation is so important to make sense of the condition and phenomenon we study. Atkinson (1983) contended that in a sense of all social research is a form of participant observation because we cannot study the social world without being part of it. Further, Glesne (2011) asserted through being part of social setting, we learn firsthand how the actions of research participants: correspond to their words; see patterns of behavior; experience unexpected, as well as the expected; and develop the quality of trust, relationship, and obligation with others in the setting (p. 63).
Glesne (2011) explained the difference between real observation and the everyday life we observe people: a) The researcher carefully observes, systematically experiences, and consciously records in detail the many aspects of a situation; b) Researcher constantly analyzes observation for meaning (1) what is going on here?; (2) Am I seeing what I hope to see and nothing else?; (3) Am I being judgmental or evaluative? And c) Observation is instrumental to the research goals. Glesne (2011) also asserted that observers need to be really careful with what they do. They need to present in the area they observe in such a natural way in which they eliminate the “spy” and “suspect”. Even though the term “otherness” will be embedded for every researcher, yet at least we try to minimize it. “As a researcher, your observer stance can make you and others feel as though you are a spy of sorts, while your participant stance can indicate a closeness or an involvement that may be suspect because of your role as a researcher (and an observer)” (Glesne, 2011, p. 64).
There are two kinds of observation: 1) non-participant observation: researcher is completely separate from the research group (e.g. using video/observing behind a one-way mirror); 2) participant observation: researcher becomes a member of the group, joins in action (observation can take place at any point in a scale from fully non-participant to fully participant). The goal of being participant-observation is therefore differentiating an observer with a journalist: a journalist has a tendency to swoop in and swoop out; the observer/ethnographer to stay long enough to get a full description and a deep understanding; an observer achieves the outcome requires time and a learner’s stance; a participant-observation means learning from people rather than studying people (learner= not to evaluate, nor to compete for the prestige of status); and a participant observer seeks to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange (Glesne, 2011).
2. Interviews
An interview is one method of collecting the data. Interviews are important in qualitative method because they enable us to get the first-hand data. One positive thing about interviews is that an interviewer can record everything they see, hear, and fell which then can be analyzed. Unlike surveys, we can analyze gestures as well as body language which perhaps additional information. Interviews differ from the ordinary conversation because interviews offer oral quiz using a set of preplanned core questions (Glesne, 2011). There are several advantages by selecting interviews as a method of collecting data: 1) interviews allow us to direct contact with the users often leads to specific, constructive suggestions; 2) interviews allow us to obtain detailed information; and 3) interviews allow us to gain a more rich and detailed data (Anon, n.d). Glesne (2011) classified two different types of interviews: 1) semi-structured interviews: use loose structure, and open-ended questions defining the area to be explored; and 2) in-depth/unstructured interviews: less structure than semi-structured ones. This type of interview is used to explore in detail the respondents’ own perceptions and accounts and is aimed to gain an in-depth understanding. Further, to make sense and to make a good quality of interviews, Glesne (2011) suggested every researcher to take practice.
In conclusion, both quantitative and qualitative methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. It is up to the researcher to choose either or both, based on how they are going to answer their research questions. At this moment, I am planning to use qualitative methodology as a method for my future research. This is because qualitative research enables me to: 1) get more information, 2) develop relationship building (not just as a data collector; rather as an exploiter, reformer, advocate, and friend (Glesne, 2011)); 3) better help me understand circumstances/population; 4) gain in-depth data information; and 5) interpret more detail on social phenomenon.
References:
Atknison, E. (2004). Thinking outside the box: An exercise in heresy. Qualitative inquiry. 10, 111-129.
Anon (n.d) Research methodology and design.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. Pearson. Boston: Massachusetts
Greenhalgh, T ., & Taylor, R. (1997). How to read a paper: papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ. 315, 740-743
Hoepfl, M.C., (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A premier for technology education researcher. Journal of Technology Education. 9(1)
Merriam SB (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey- Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Myers M.D., & Avinson, D.E. (2009) An introduction to qualitative research in information systems.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ratner, C. (2002) Subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative methodology. Forum: Qualitative Social Research Sozialforschung. 3(3)Art.16.
Strauss A., & Corbin J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE Publications Inc. Newbury Park, CA.
EmoticonEmoticon