Different types of qualitative research share common characteristics and use similar procedures though differences in data collection and analysis do exist.

The following elements are part of most qualitative approaches:

• The data have primacy (priority); the theoretical framework is not predetermined but derives directly from the data.
  
• Qualitative research is context-bound and researchers must be context sensitive.
  
• Researchers immerse themselves in the natural setting of the people whose behaviour and thoughts they wish to explore.
  
• Qualitative researchers focus on the ‘emic’ perspective, the views of the people involved in the research and their perceptions, meanings and interpretations.
  
• Qualitative researchers use ‘thick description’: they describe, analyse and interpret but also go beyond the constructions of the participants.
  
• The relationship between the researcher and the researched is close and based on a position of equality as human beings.
  
• Reflexivity in the research makes explicit the stance of the researcher, who is the main research tool.

The primacy of data

Researchers usually approach people with the aim of finding out about their concerns; they go to the participants to collect the rich and in-depth data that can then become the basis for theorising. The interaction between the researcher and the participants leads to an understanding of experience and the generation of concepts. The data themselves have primacy, generate new theoretical ideas, and they help modify already existing theories or uncover the essence of phenomena. It means that the research design cannot be predefined before the start of the research. In other types of research, assumptions and ideas lead to hypotheses which are tested (though this is not true for all quantitative research); sampling frames are imposed; in qualitative research, however, the data have priority. The theoretical framework of the research project is not predetermined but based on the incoming data. Although the researchers do have knowledge of some of the theories involved, the incoming data might confirm or contradict existing assumptions and theory.

This approach to social science is, initially at least, inductive. Researchers move from the specific to the general, from the data to theory or analytic description. They do not impose ideas or follow up assumptions but give accounts of reality as seen by the participants. Researchers must be open-minded – though they cannot help having some ‘hunches’ about what they may find, especially if they are familiar with the setting and some of the literature on the topic.

While some qualitative inquiry is concerned with the generation of theory such as grounded theory, many researchers do not achieve this; others, such as phenomenologists, focus on a particular phenomenon to illuminate it. All approaches usually provide descriptions or interpretation of participants’ experiences and the phenomenon to be studied but go to a more abstract and theoretical level in their written work, especially when they carry out postgraduate research. Qualitative inquiry is not static but developmental and dynamic in character; the focus is on process as well as outcomes.

Contextualisation

Researchers must be sensitive to the context of the research and immerse themselves in the setting and situation. Both personal and social context is important. The context of participants’ lives or work affects their behaviour, and therefore researchers have to realise that the participants are grounded in their history and temporality. Researchers take into account the total context of people’s lives and the broader political and social framework of the culture in which it takes place. The conditions in which they gather the data, the locality, time and history are all involved. Events and actions are studied as they occur in everyday ‘real life settings’. Koro-Ljungberg (2008) states that participants not only have personal values and beliefs but are also connected with their environment, and this influences their interactions with the researcher. It is important to respect the context and culture in which the study takes place. If researchers understand the context, they can locate the actions and perceptions of individuals and grasp the meanings that they communicate. The interest in context and contextualisation goes beyond that which influences the research; it also affects its outcomes and applications in the clinical situation. Scott et al. (2008) add that organisational context, group membership and other factors are also important in the applications and use of the research in healthcare settings.

Immersion in the setting

Qualitative researchers use the strategies of observing, questioning and listening, immersing themselves in the ‘real’ world of the participants. Observing, listening and asking questions will lead to rich data. Involvement in the setting also assists in focusing on the interactions between people and the way they construct or change rules and situations. Qualitative inquiry can trace progress and development over time, as perceived by the participants.

For the understanding of participants’ experiences, it is necessary to become familiar with their world. When professionals do research, they are often part of the setting they investigate and know it intimately. This might mean that they could miss important issues or considerations. To better be able to examine the world of the participant, researchers must not take this world for granted but should question their own assumptions and act like strangers to the setting or as ‘naïve’ observers. They ‘make the familiar strange’ (Delamont and Atkinson (1995) called their book Fighting Familiarity). Immersion might mean attending meetings with or about informants, becoming familiar with other similar situations, reading documents or observing interaction in the setting. This can even start before the formal data collection phase.

Most qualitative inquiry investigates patterns of interaction, seeks knowledge about a group or a culture or explores the life world of individuals. In clinical, social care or educational settings, this may be interaction between professionals and clients or relatives, or interaction with colleagues. It also means listening to people and attempting to see the world from their point of view. The research can be a macro- or micro-study – for instance, it may take place in a hospital ward, a classroom, a residential home, a reception area or indeed the community. Immersion in the culture of a hospital or hospital ward, for instance, does not just mean getting to know the physical environment but also the particular ideologies, values and ways of thinking of its members. Researchers need sensitivity to describe or interpret what they observe and hear. Human beings are influenced by their experiences therefore qualitative methods encompass processes and changes over time in the culture or subculture under study.

The ‘emic’ perspective

Qualitative approaches are linked to the subjective nature of social reality; they provide insights from the perspective of participants, enabling researchers to see events as their informants do; they explore ‘the insiders’ view’. Anthropologists and linguists call this the emic perspective (Harris, 1976). The term was initially coined by the linguist Pike in 1954. It means that researchers attempt to examine the experiences, feelings and perceptions of the people they study, rather than immediately imposing a framework of their own that might distort the ideas of the participants. They ‘uncover’ the meaning people give to their experiences and the way in which they interpret them, although meanings should not be reduced to purely subjective accounts of the participants as researchers search for patterns in process and interaction, or the invariant constituents of the phenomenon they study.

Qualitative research is based on the premise that individuals are best placed to describe situations and feelings in their own words. Of course, these meanings may be unclear or ambiguous and they are not fixed; the social world is not frozen in a particular moment or situation but dynamic and changing. By observing people and listening to their accounts, researchers seek to understand the process by which participants make sense of their own behaviour and the rules that govern their actions. Taking into account their informants’ intentions and motives researchers gain access to their social reality. Of course, the report individuals give are their explanations of an event or action, but as the researcher wishes to find people’s own definition of reality, these reports are valid data. Researchers cannot always rely on the participants’ accounts but are able to take their words and actions as reflections of underlying meanings. The qualitative approach requires ‘empathetic understanding’, that is, the investigators must try to examine the situations, events and actions from the participants’ – the social actors’ – point of view and not impose their own perspective. The meanings of participants are interpreted or a phenomenon identified and described. Researchers have access to the participants’ world through experience and observation. This type of research is thought to empower participants, because they do not merely react to the questions of the researchers but have a voice and guide the study. For this reason, the people studied are generally called participants or informants rather than subjects. It is necessary that the relationship between researcher and informant is one of trust; this close relationship and the researcher’s in-depth knowledge of the informant’s situation make deceit unlikely (though not impossible).

Of course, researchers theorise or infer from observed behaviour or participants’ words. The researcher’s view, the analytical and more abstract interpretation and description, is the etic perspective – the outsider’s view (Harris, 1976). Researchers move back and forth between the emic perspective of the participants and their own etic view. These ideas correspond directly to those of Denzin (1989) who speaks of first- and second-order constructs. First-order constructs are those used in the common-sense perspective on everyday life, while second-order constructs are more abstract and imposed by the researcher. For instance, individuals often mention the term ‘learning the job’ which could be called a first-order concept recognised by people in everyday life. A social scientist would call the same concept ‘occupational socialisation’, a second-order concept. The two terms show the difference between ‘lay language’ and ‘academic language’. It must be kept in mind, however, that the emic view cannot be simply translated into an etic perspective but demands analysis and reflection from the researcher.

Thick description

Immersion in the setting will help researchers use thick description (Geertz, 1973; first used by the philosopher Gilbert Ryle). It involves detailed portrayals of the participants’ experiences, going beyond a report of surface phenomena to their interpretations, uncovering feelings and the meanings of their actions. This also means that researchers create and produce another layer constructed from that of the participants. Thick description develops from the data and the context. The task involves describing the location and the people within it, giving visual pictures of setting, events and situations as well as verbatim narratives of individuals’ accounts of their perceptions and ideas in context.

The description of the situation or discussion should be thorough; this means that writers describe everything in vivid detail. Indeed Denzin (1989: 83) defines thick description as: ‘deep, dense, detailed accounts of problematic experiences … It presents detail, context, emotion and the webs of social relationship that join persons to one another.’ Thick description is not merely factual, but includes theoretical and analytic description.

Thick description helps readers of a research study to develop an active role in the research because the researchers share their knowledge of the participants’ perspective with the readers of the study. Through clear description of the culture, the context and the process of the research, the reader can follow the path of the researcher and share some understanding of the phenomenon or the culture under study. Thick description not only shows readers of the story what they themselves would experience were they in the same situation as the participants, but it also generates theoretical and abstract ideas which the researcher has developed.

Ponterotto (2006) develops the concept of ‘thick description’, traces its evolution and stresses the importance of context. He states that the discussion of a qualitative research report ‘successfully merges the participants’ lived experiences with the interpretations of these experiences …’ (p. 547)

The importance of the research relationship

In order to gain access to the true thoughts and feelings of the participants, researchers adopt a non-judgemental stance towards the thoughts and words of the participants. The relationship should be built on mutual trust. This is particularly important in interviews and observations. The listener becomes the learner in this situation, while the informant is the teacher who is also encouraged to be reflective. Rapport does not automatically imply an intimate relationship or deep friendship (Spradley, 1979), but it does lead to negotiation and sharing of ideas though each relationship is unique in the context of time and place. Rapport and trust make the research more interesting for the participants because they feel able to ask questions. Negotiation is not a once and for all event but a continuous process, indeed Boulton (2007: 2191) speaks of social science relationships as ‘more enduring, negotiated and equal’. In qualitative inquiry the participants have more power because they can guide the researcher to issues that are of concern for them. Miller and Boulton (2007: 2200) state that the relationship between participants is one of continuously shifting boundaries between the professional and the personal.

The researcher should answer questions about the nature of the project as honestly and openly as possible without creating bias in the study.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity is critical reflection on what has been thought and done in a qualitative research project. It locates the researcher in the research project. Finlay (2002a: 531) names reflexivity as the process ‘where researchers engage in explicit, self-aware analysis of their own role’. It is a conscious attempt by researchers to acknowledge their own involvement in the study – a form of self-monitoring in relation to the research that is being carried out. It also includes awareness of the interaction between the researcher, the participants and the research itself and it takes into account how the process of the research affects findings and eventual outcomes.

‘Critical subjectivity’, as Etherington (2004) calls it, means adopting a critical stance to oneself as researcher. Personal response and thoughts about the research and research participants is taken into account, and researchers are aware and take stock of their own social location and how this affects the study. This is of major importance in health research where researchers often have been socialised into professional ways of thinking. Although they do not take centre stage in the research, they have a significant place in its process during collection and interpretation of data as well as in the relationship they have to participants and to the readers of their research. The researchers’ own standpoint and values shape the research, and this needs to be made explicit in qualitative inquiry. Researchers should be aware of and present their own preconceptions and assumptions while attempting to understand the effect they have on the data and be conscious of both structural and subjective elements in their research. The researcher is part of the research but also the conditions and problems which are encountered and the context in which it occurs; all these become a focus for reflexivity. In other words, reflexivity is not only critical reflection on the researcher’s place in the inquiry but also on the process of knowledge generation and the factors which have influenced it (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). Thus the concept of reflexivity is concerned with the awareness of socially located and constituted knowledge.

Finlay (2002b) discusses five types of reflexivity: