qualitative research related literature

Archer Library

Qualitative research: literature review .

• Archer Library This link opens in a new window
• Schedule a Reference Appointment This link opens in a new window
• Qualitative Research Handout This link opens in a new window
• Locating Books
• ebook Collections This link opens in a new window
• A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
• Research & Stats
• Literature Review Resources
• Citation & Reference

Exploring the literature review 

Literature review model: 6 steps.

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Your Literature Review

Step 2: search, boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

• Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
• Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
• Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
• Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
• Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
• Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17).  Included are the following points:

• Historical background for the research;
• Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
• Theories and concepts related to your research;
• Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
• Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;" 
• Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. Details are provided in the adjacent Schedule an Appointment box.

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

AU Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: Scholarly & Practitioner Journals

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on the Databases  A to Z list . Search the database by subject, type, name, or do use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z list also includes open access resources and select internet sites.

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. AU library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers:  Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal .  The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the nation’s largest newsroom dedicated to covering colleges and universities.  Source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators

The Chronicle features complete contents of the latest print issue; daily news and advice columns; current job listings; archive of previously published content; discussion forums; and career-building tools such as online CV management and salary databases. Dates covered: 1970-present.

Offers in-depth coverage of national and international business and finance as well as first-rate coverage of hard news--all from America's premier financial newspaper. Covers complete bibliographic information and also subjects, companies, people, products, and geographic areas. 

Comprehensive coverage back to 1984 is available from the world's leading financial newspaper through the ProQuest database. 

Newspaper Source provides cover-to-cover full text for hundreds of national (U.S.), international and regional newspapers. In addition, it offers television and radio news transcripts from major networks.

Provides complete television and radio news transcripts from CBS News, CNN, CNN International, FOX News, and more.

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators:  AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results.  EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

• Limit results to full text;
• Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
• Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
• Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned.  This can be a double-edged sword.  How? 

• If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
• If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
• Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?).  When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
• EBSCO Connect: EBSCOhost Search Tips
• EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
• ProQuest Help: Search Tips
• ERIC: How does ERIC search work?

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video:  Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu.  If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps.  A video transcript is provided below.

• EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A definition from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A literature review is "a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works" (Reitz, 2014). 

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

Recommended Reading

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

EBSCO Connect [Discover and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards and truncation symbols. Retrieved May 3, 2022; https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: 

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Archer Librarians

Schedule an appointment.

Contact a librarian directly (email), or submit a request form. If you have worked with someone before, you can request them on the form.

• ★ Archer Library Help • Online Reqest Form
• Carrie Halquist • Reference & Instruction
• Jessica Byers • Reference & Curation
• Don Reams • Corrections Education & Reference
• Diane Schrecker • Education & Head of the IRC
• Tanaya Silcox • Technical Services & Business
• Sarah Thomas • Acquisitions & ATS Librarian
• << Previous: Research & Stats
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/qualitative

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Review of Related Literature: Format, Example, & How to Make RRL

A review of related literature is a separate paper or a part of an article that collects and synthesizes discussion on a topic. Its purpose is to show the current state of research on the issue and highlight gaps in existing knowledge. A literature review can be included in a research paper or scholarly article, typically following the introduction and before the research methods section.

This article will clarify the definition, significance, and structure of a review of related literature. You’ll also learn how to organize your literature review and discover ideas for an RRL in different subjects.

🔤 What Is RRL?

• ❗ Significance of Literature Review
• 🔎 How to Search for Literature
• 🧩 Literature Review Structure
• 📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others
• ✍️ How to Write an RRL
• 📚 Examples of RRL

🔗 References

A review of related literature (RRL) is a part of the research report that examines significant studies, theories, and concepts published in scholarly sources on a particular topic. An RRL includes 3 main components:

• A short overview and critique of the previous research.
• Similarities and differences between past studies and the current one.
• An explanation of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the research.

❗ Significance of Review of Related Literature

Although the goal of a review of related literature differs depending on the discipline and its intended use, its significance cannot be overstated. Here are some examples of how a review might be beneficial:

• It helps determine knowledge gaps .
• It saves from duplicating research that has already been conducted.
• It provides an overview of various research areas within the discipline.
• It demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the topic.

🔎 How to Perform a Literature Search

Including a description of your search strategy in the literature review section can significantly increase your grade. You can search sources with the following steps:

🧩 Literature Review Structure Example

The majority of literature reviews follow a standard introduction-body-conclusion structure. Let’s look at the RRL structure in detail.

Introduction of Review of Related Literature: Sample

An introduction should clarify the study topic and the depth of the information to be delivered. It should also explain the types of sources used. If your lit. review is part of a larger research proposal or project, you can combine its introductory paragraph with the introduction of your paper.

Here is a sample introduction to an RRL about cyberbullying:

Bullying has troubled people since the beginning of time. However, with modern technological advancements, especially social media, bullying has evolved into cyberbullying. As a result, nowadays, teenagers and adults cannot flee their bullies, which makes them feel lonely and helpless. This literature review will examine recent studies on cyberbullying.

Sample Review of Related Literature Thesis

A thesis statement should include the central idea of your literature review and the primary supporting elements you discovered in the literature. Thesis statements are typically put at the end of the introductory paragraph.

Look at a sample thesis of a review of related literature:

This literature review shows that scholars have recently covered the issues of bullies’ motivation, the impact of bullying on victims and aggressors, common cyberbullying techniques, and victims’ coping strategies. However, there is still no agreement on the best practices to address cyberbullying.

Literature Review Body Paragraph Example

The main body of a literature review should provide an overview of the existing research on the issue. Body paragraphs should not just summarize each source but analyze them. You can organize your paragraphs with these 3 elements:

• Claim . Start with a topic sentence linked to your literature review purpose.
• Evidence . Cite relevant information from your chosen sources.
• Discussion . Explain how the cited data supports your claim.

Here’s a literature review body paragraph example:

Scholars have examined the link between the aggressor and the victim. Beran et al. (2007) state that students bullied online often become cyberbullies themselves. Faucher et al. (2014) confirm this with their findings: they discovered that male and female students began engaging in cyberbullying after being subject to bullying. Hence, one can conclude that being a victim of bullying increases one’s likelihood of becoming a cyberbully.

Review of Related Literature: Conclusion

A conclusion presents a general consensus on the topic. Depending on your literature review purpose, it might include the following:

• Introduction to further research . If you write a literature review as part of a larger research project, you can present your research question in your conclusion .
• Overview of theories . You can summarize critical theories and concepts to help your reader understand the topic better.
• Discussion of the gap . If you identified a research gap in the reviewed literature, your conclusion could explain why that gap is significant.

Check out a conclusion example that discusses a research gap:

There is extensive research into bullies’ motivation, the consequences of bullying for victims and aggressors, strategies for bullying, and coping with it. Yet, scholars still have not reached a consensus on what to consider the best practices to combat cyberbullying. This question is of great importance because of the significant adverse effects of cyberbullying on victims and bullies.

📋 Format of RRL — APA, MLA, & Others

In this section, we will discuss how to format an RRL according to the most common citation styles: APA, Chicago, MLA, and Harvard.

Writing a literature review using the APA7 style requires the following text formatting:

• When using APA in-text citations , include the author’s last name and the year of publication in parentheses.
• For direct quotations , you must also add the page number. If you use sources without page numbers, such as websites or e-books, include a paragraph number instead.
• When referring to the author’s name in a sentence , you do not need to repeat it at the end of the sentence. Instead, include the year of publication inside the parentheses after their name.
• The reference list should be included at the end of your literature review. It is always alphabetized by the last name of the author (from A to Z), and the lines are indented one-half inch from the left margin of your paper. Do not forget to invert authors’ names (the last name should come first) and include the full titles of journals instead of their abbreviations. If you use an online source, add its URL.

The RRL format in the Chicago style is as follows:

• Author-date . You place your citations in brackets within the text, indicating the name of the author and the year of publication.
• Notes and bibliography . You place your citations in numbered footnotes or endnotes to connect the citation back to the source in the bibliography.
• The reference list, or bibliography , in Chicago style, is at the end of a literature review. The sources are arranged alphabetically and single-spaced. Each bibliography entry begins with the author’s name and the source’s title, followed by publication information, such as the city of publication, the publisher, and the year of publication.

Writing a literature review using the MLA style requires the following text formatting:

• In the MLA format, you can cite a source in the text by indicating the author’s last name and the page number in parentheses at the end of the citation. If the cited information takes several pages, you need to include all the page numbers.
• The reference list in MLA style is titled “ Works Cited .” In this section, all sources used in the paper should be listed in alphabetical order. Each entry should contain the author, title of the source, title of the journal or a larger volume, other contributors, version, number, publisher, and publication date.

The Harvard style requires you to use the following text formatting for your RRL:

• In-text citations in the Harvard style include the author’s last name and the year of publication. If you are using a direct quote in your literature review, you need to add the page number as well.
• Arrange your list of references alphabetically. Each entry should contain the author’s last name, their initials, the year of publication, the title of the source, and other publication information, like the journal title and issue number or the publisher.

✍️ How to Write Review of Related Literature – Sample

Literature reviews can be organized in many ways depending on what you want to achieve with them. In this section, we will look at 3 examples of how you can write your RRL.

Thematic Literature Review

A thematic literature review is arranged around central themes or issues discussed in the sources. If you have identified some recurring themes in the literature, you can divide your RRL into sections that address various aspects of the topic. For example, if you examine studies on e-learning, you can distinguish such themes as the cost-effectiveness of online learning, the technologies used, and its effectiveness compared to traditional education.

Chronological Literature Review

A chronological literature review is a way to track the development of the topic over time. If you use this method, avoid merely listing and summarizing sources in chronological order. Instead, try to analyze the trends, turning moments, and critical debates that have shaped the field’s path. Also, you can give your interpretation of how and why specific advances occurred.

Methodological Literature Review

A methodological literature review differs from the preceding ones in that it usually doesn’t focus on the sources’ content. Instead, it is concerned with the research methods . So, if your references come from several disciplines or fields employing various research techniques, you can compare the findings and conclusions of different methodologies, for instance:

• empirical vs. theoretical studies;
• qualitative vs. quantitative research.

📚 Examples of Review of Related Literature and Studies

We have prepared a short example of RRL on climate change for you to see how everything works in practice!

Climate change is one of the most important issues nowadays. Based on a variety of facts, it is now clearer than ever that humans are altering the Earth's climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, causing sea level rise, a significant loss of Arctic ice, and other climate-related changes. This literature review provides a thorough summary of research on climate change, focusing on climate change fingerprints and evidence of human influence on the Earth's climate system.

Physical Mechanisms and Evidence of Human Influence

Scientists are convinced that climate change is directly influenced by the emission of greenhouse gases. They have carefully analyzed various climate data and evidence, concluding that the majority of the observed global warming over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural factors alone. Instead, there is compelling evidence pointing to a significant contribution of human activities, primarily the emission of greenhouse gases (Walker, 2014). For example, based on simple physics calculations, doubled carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere can lead to a global temperature increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius. (Elderfield, 2022). In order to determine the human influence on climate, scientists still have to analyze a lot of natural changes that affect temperature, precipitation, and other components of climate on timeframes ranging from days to decades and beyond.

Fingerprinting Climate Change

Fingerprinting climate change is a useful tool to identify the causes of global warming because different factors leave unique marks on climate records. This is evident when scientists look beyond overall temperature changes and examine how warming is distributed geographically and over time (Watson, 2022). By investigating these climate patterns, scientists can obtain a more complex understanding of the connections between natural climate variability and climate variability caused by human activity.

Modeling Climate Change and Feedback

To accurately predict the consequences of feedback mechanisms, the rate of warming, and regional climate change, scientists can employ sophisticated mathematical models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice (the cryosphere). These models are grounded in well-established physical laws and incorporate the latest scientific understanding of climate-related processes (Shuckburgh, 2013). Although different climate models produce slightly varying projections for future warming, they all will agree that feedback mechanisms play a significant role in amplifying the initial warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. (Meehl, 2019).

In conclusion, the literature on global warming indicates that there are well-understood physical processes that link variations in greenhouse gas concentrations to climate change. In addition, it covers the scientific proof that the rates of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and continue to rise fast. According to the sources, the majority of this recent change is almost definitely caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities. Citizens and governments can alter their energy production methods and consumption patterns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, the magnitude of climate change. By acting now, society can prevent the worst consequences of climate change and build a more resilient and sustainable future for generations to come.

Have you ever struggled with finding the topic for an RRL in different subjects? Read the following paragraphs to get some ideas!

Nursing Literature Review Example

Many topics in the nursing field require research. For example, you can write a review of literature related to dengue fever . Give a general overview of dengue virus infections, including its clinical symptoms, diagnosis, prevention, and therapy.

Another good idea is to review related literature and studies about teenage pregnancy . This review can describe the effectiveness of specific programs for adolescent mothers and their children and summarize recommendations for preventing early pregnancy.

📝 Check out some more valuable examples below:

• Hospital Readmissions: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Lower Sepsis Mortality Rates .
• Breast Cancer: Literature Review .
• Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Literature Review .
• PICO for Pressure Ulcers: Literature Review .
• COVID-19 Spread Prevention: Literature Review .
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Literature Review .
• Hypertension Treatment Adherence: Literature Review .
• Neonatal Sepsis Prevention: Literature Review .
• Healthcare-Associated Infections: Literature Review .
• Understaffing in Nursing: Literature Review .

Psychology Literature Review Example

If you look for an RRL topic in psychology , you can write a review of related literature about stress . Summarize scientific evidence about stress stages, side effects, types, or reduction strategies. Or you can write a review of related literature about computer game addiction . In this case, you may concentrate on the neural mechanisms underlying the internet gaming disorder, compare it to other addictions, or evaluate treatment strategies.

A review of related literature about cyberbullying is another interesting option. You can highlight the impact of cyberbullying on undergraduate students’ academic, social, and emotional development.

📝 Look at the examples that we have prepared for you to come up with some more ideas:

• Mindfulness in Counseling: A Literature Review .
• Team-Building Across Cultures: Literature Review .
• Anxiety and Decision Making: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on Depression .
• Literature Review on Narcissism .
• Effects of Depression Among Adolescents .
• Causes and Effects of Anxiety in Children .

Literature Review — Sociology Example

Sociological research poses critical questions about social structures and phenomena. For example, you can write a review of related literature about child labor , exploring cultural beliefs and social norms that normalize the exploitation of children. Or you can create a review of related literature about social media . It can investigate the impact of social media on relationships between adolescents or the role of social networks on immigrants’ acculturation .

📝 You can find some more ideas below!

• Single Mothers’ Experiences of Relationships with Their Adolescent Sons .
• Teachers and Students’ Gender-Based Interactions .
• Gender Identity: Biological Perspective and Social Cognitive Theory .
• Gender: Culturally-Prescribed Role or Biological Sex .
• The Influence of Opioid Misuse on Academic Achievement of Veteran Students .
• The Importance of Ethics in Research .
• The Role of Family and Social Network Support in Mental Health .

Education Literature Review Example

For your education studies , you can write a review of related literature about academic performance to determine factors that affect student achievement and highlight research gaps. One more idea is to create a review of related literature on study habits , considering their role in the student’s life and academic outcomes.

You can also evaluate a computerized grading system in a review of related literature to single out its advantages and barriers to implementation. Or you can complete a review of related literature on instructional materials to identify their most common types and effects on student achievement.

📝 Find some inspiration in the examples below:

• Literature Review on Online Learning Challenges From COVID-19 .
• Education, Leadership, and Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review: Standardized Testing Bias .
• Bullying of Disabled Children in School .
• Interventions and Letter & Sound Recognition: A Literature Review .
• Social-Emotional Skills Program for Preschoolers .
• Effectiveness of Educational Leadership Management Skills .

Business Research Literature Review

If you’re a business student, you can focus on customer satisfaction in your review of related literature. Discuss specific customer satisfaction features and how it is affected by service quality and prices. You can also create a theoretical literature review about consumer buying behavior to evaluate theories that have significantly contributed to understanding how consumers make purchasing decisions.

📝 Look at the examples to get more exciting ideas:

• Leadership and Communication: Literature Review .
• Human Resource Development: Literature Review .
• Project Management. Literature Review .
• Strategic HRM: A Literature Review .
• Customer Relationship Management: Literature Review .
• Literature Review on International Financial Reporting Standards .
• Cultures of Management: Literature Review .

To conclude, a review of related literature is a significant genre of scholarly works that can be applied in various disciplines and for multiple goals. The sources examined in an RRL provide theoretical frameworks for future studies and help create original research questions and hypotheses.

When you finish your outstanding literature review, don’t forget to check whether it sounds logical and coherent. Our text-to-speech tool can help you with that!

• Literature Reviews | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review | Purdue Online Writing Lab
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature | University of Wisconsin-Madison
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It | University of Toronto
• Writing a Literature Review | UC San Diego
• Conduct a Literature Review | The University of Arizona
• Methods for Literature Reviews | National Library of Medicine
• Literature Reviews: 5. Write the Review | Georgia State University

How to Write an Animal Testing Essay: Tips for Argumentative & Persuasive Papers

Descriptive essay topics: examples, outline, & more.

Chapter 9. Reviewing the Literature

What is a “literature review”.

No researcher ever comes up with a research question that is wholly novel. Someone, somewhere, has asked the same thing. Academic research is part of a larger community of researchers, and it is your responsibility, as a member of this community, to acknowledge others who have asked similar questions and to put your particular research into this greater context. It is not simply a convention or custom to begin your study with a review of previous literature (the “ lit review ”) but an important responsibility you owe the scholarly community.

Too often, new researchers pursue a topic to study and then write something like, “No one has ever studied this before” or “This area is underresearched.” It may be that no one has studied this particular group or setting, but it is highly unlikely no one has studied the foundational phenomenon of interest. And that comment about an area being underresearched? Be careful. The statement may simply signal to others that you haven’t done your homework. Rubin ( 2021 ) refers to this as “free soloing,” and it is not appreciated in academic work:

The truth of the matter is, academics don’t really like when people free solo. It’s really bad form to omit talking about the other people who are doing or have done research in your area. Partly, I mean we need to cite their work, but I also mean we need to respond to it—agree or disagree, clarify for extend. It’s also really bad form to talk about your research in a way that does not make it understandable to other academics.…You have to explain to your readers what your story is really about in terms they care about . This means using certain terminology, referencing debates in the literature, and citing relevant works—that is, in connecting your work to something else. ( 51–52 )

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. It includes both articles and books—and in some cases reports—relevant to a particular area of research. Ideally, one’s research question follows from the reading of what has already been produced. For example, you are interested in studying sports injuries related to female gymnasts. You read everything you can find on sports injuries related to female gymnasts, and you begin to get a sense of what questions remain open. You find that there is a lot of research on how coaches manage sports injuries and much about cultures of silence around treating injuries, but you don’t know what the gymnasts themselves are thinking about these issues. You look specifically for studies about this and find several, which then pushes you to narrow the question further. Your literature review then provides the road map of how you came to your very specific question, and it puts your study in the context of studies of sports injuries. What you eventually find can “speak to” all the related questions as well as your particular one.

In practice, the process is often a bit messier. Many researchers, and not simply those starting out, begin with a particular question and have a clear idea of who they want to study and where they want to conduct their study but don’t really know much about other studies at all. Although backward, we need to recognize this is pretty common. Telling students to “find literature” after the fact can seem like a purposeless task or just another hurdle for completing a thesis or dissertation. It is not! Even if you were not motivated by the literature in the first place, acknowledging similar studies and connecting your own research to those studies are important parts of building knowledge. Acknowledgment of past research is a responsibility you owe the discipline to which you belong.

Literature reviews can also signal theoretical approaches and particular concepts that you will incorporate into your own study. For example, let us say you are doing a study of how people find their first jobs after college, and you want to use the concept of social capital . There are competing definitions of social capital out there (e.g., Bourdieu vs. Burt vs. Putnam). Bourdieu’s notion is of one form of capital, or durable asset, of a “network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” ( 1984:248 ). Burt emphasizes the “brokerage opportunities” in a social network as social capital ( 1997:355 ). Putnam’s social capital is all about “facilitating coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” ( 2001:67 ). Your literature review can adjudicate among these three approaches, or it can simply refer to the one that is animating your own research. If you include Bourdieu in your literature review, readers will know “what kind” of social capital you are talking about as well as what kind of social scientist you yourself are. They will likely understand that you are interested more in how some people are advantaged by their social capital relative to others rather than being interested in the mechanics of how social networks operate.

The literature review thus does two important things for you: firstly, it allows you to acknowledge previous research in your area of interest, thereby situating you within a discipline or body of scholars, and, secondly, it demonstrates that you know what you are talking about. If you present the findings of your research study without including a literature review, it can be like singing into the wind. It sounds nice, but no one really hears it, or if they do catch snippets, they don’t know where it is coming from.

Examples of Literature Reviews

To help you get a grasp of what a good literature review looks like and how it can advance your study, let’s take a look at a few examples.

Reader-Friendly Example: The Power of Peers

The first is by Janice McCabe ( 2016 ) and is from an article on peer networks in the journal Contexts . Contexts presents articles in a relatively reader-friendly format, with the goal of reaching a large audience for interesting sociological research. Read this example carefully and note how easily McCabe is able to convey the relevance of her own work by situating it in the context of previous studies:

Scholars who study education have long acknowledged the importance of peers for students’ well-being and academic achievement. For example, in 1961, James Coleman argued that peer culture within high schools shapes students’ social and academic aspirations and successes. More recently, Judith Rich Harris has drawn on research in a range of areas—from sociological studies of preschool children to primatologists’ studies of chimpanzees and criminologists’ studies of neighborhoods—to argue that peers matter much more than parents in how children “turn out.” Researchers have explored students’ social lives in rich detail, as in Murray Milner’s book about high school students, Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids , and Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton’s look at college students, Paying for the Party . These works consistently show that peers play a very important role in most students’ lives. They tend, however, to prioritize social over academic influence and to use a fuzzy conception of peers rather than focusing directly on friends—the relationships that should matter most for student success. Social scientists have also studied the power of peers through network analysis, which is based on uncovering the web of connections between people. Network analysis involves visually mapping networks and mathematically comparing their structures (such as the density of ties) and the positions of individuals within them (such as how central a given person is within the network). As Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler point out in their book Connected , network structure influences a range of outcomes, including health, happiness, wealth, weight, and emotions. Given that sociologists have long considered network explanations for social phenomena, it’s surprising that we know little about how college students’ friends impact their experiences. In line with this network tradition, I focus on the structure of friendship networks, constructing network maps so that the differences we see across participants are due to the underlying structure, including each participant’s centrality in their friendship group and the density of ties among their friends. ( 23 )

What did you notice? In her very second sentence, McCabe uses “for example” to introduce a study by Coleman, thereby indicating that she is not going to tell you every single study in this area but is going to tell you that (1) there is a lot of research in this area, (2) it has been going on since at least 1961, and (3) it is still relevant (i.e., recent studies are still being done now). She ends her first paragraph by summarizing the body of literature in this area (after giving you a few examples) and then telling you what may have been (so far) left out of this research. In the second paragraph, she shifts to a separate interesting focus that is related to the first but is also quite distinct. Lit reviews very often include two (or three) distinct strands of literature, the combination of which nicely backgrounds this particular study . In the case of our female gymnast study (above), those two strands might be (1) cultures of silence around sports injuries and (2) the importance of coaches. McCabe concludes her short and sweet literature review with one sentence explaining how she is drawing from both strands of the literature she has succinctly presented for her particular study. This example should show you that literature reviews can be readable, helpful, and powerful additions to your final presentation.

Authoritative Academic Journal Example: Working Class Students’ College Expectations

The second example is more typical of academic journal writing. It is an article published in the British Journal of Sociology of Education by Wolfgang Lehmann ( 2009 ):

Although this increase in post-secondary enrolment and the push for university is evident across gender, race, ethnicity, and social class categories, access to university in Canada continues to be significantly constrained for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Finnie, Lascelles, and Sweetman 2005). Rising tuition fees coupled with an overestimation of the cost and an underestimation of the benefits of higher education has put university out of reach for many young people from low-income families (Usher 2005). Financial constraints aside, empirical studies in Canada have shown that the most important predictor of university access is parental educational attainment. Having at least one parent with a university degree significantly increases the likelihood of a young person to attend academic-track courses in high school, have high educational and career aspirations, and ultimately attend university (Andres et al. 1999, 2000; Lehmann 2007a). Drawing on Bourdieu’s various writing on habitus and class-based dispositions (see, for example, Bourdieu 1977, 1990), Hodkinson and Sparkes (1997) explain career decisions as neither determined nor completely rational. Instead, they are based on personal experiences (e.g., through employment or other exposure to occupations) and advice from others. Furthermore, they argue that we have to understand these decisions as pragmatic, rather than rational. They are pragmatic in that they are based on incomplete and filtered information, because of the social context in which the information is obtained and processed. New experiences and information can, however, also be allowed into one’s world, where they gradually or radically transform habitus, which in turn creates the possibility for the formation of new and different dispositions. Encountering a supportive teacher in elementary or secondary school, having ambitious friends, or chance encounters can spark such transformations. Transformations can be confirming or contradictory, they can be evolutionary or dislocating. Working-class students who enter university most certainly encounter such potentially transformative situations. Granfield (1991) has shown how initially dislocating feelings of inadequacy and inferiority of working-class students at an elite US law school were eventually replaced by an evolutionary transformation, in which the students came to dress, speak and act more like their middle-class and upper-class peers. In contrast, Lehmann (2007b) showed how persistent habitus dislocation led working-class university students to drop out of university. Foskett and Hemsley-Brown (1999) argue that young people’s perceptions of careers are a complex mix of their own experiences, images conveyed through adults, and derived images conveyed by the media. Media images of careers, perhaps, are even more important for working-class youth with high ambitions as they offer (generally distorted) windows into a world of professional employment to which they have few other sources of access. It has also been argued that working-class youth who do continue to university still face unique, class-specific challenges, evident in higher levels of uncertainty (Baxter and Britton 2001; Lehmann 2004, 2007a; Quinn 2004), their higher education choices (Ball et al. 2002; Brooks 2003; Reay et al. 2001) and fears of inadequacy because of their cultural outsider status (Aries and Seider 2005; Granfield 1991). Although the number of working-class university students in Canada has slowly increased, that of middle-class students at university has risen far more steeply (Knighton and Mizra 2002). These different enrolment trajectories have actually widened the participation gap, which in tum explains our continued concerns with the potential outsider status Indeed, in a study comparing first-generation working-class and traditional students who left university without graduating, Lehmann (2007b) found that first-generation working-class students were more likely to leave university very early in some cases within the first two months of enrollment. They were also more likely to leave university despite solid academic performance. Not “fitting in,” not “feeling university,” and not being able to “relate to these people” were key reasons for eventually withdrawing from university. From the preceding review of the literature, a number of key research questions arise: How do working-class university students frame their decision to attend university? How do they defy the considerable odds documented in the literature to attend university? What are the sources of information and various images that create dispositions to study at university? What role does their social-class background- or habitus play in their transition dispositions and how does this translate into expectations for university? ( 139 )

What did you notice here? How is this different from (and similar to) the first example? Note that rather than provide you with one or two illustrative examples of similar types of research, Lehmann provides abundant source citations throughout. He includes theory and concepts too. Like McCabe, Lehmann is weaving through multiple literature strands: the class gap in higher education participation in Canada, class-based dispositions, and obstacles facing working-class college students. Note how he concludes the literature review by placing his research questions in context.

Find other articles of interest and read their literature reviews carefully. I’ve included two more for you at the end of this chapter . As you learned how to diagram a sentence in elementary school (hopefully!), try diagramming the literature reviews. What are the “different strands” of research being discussed? How does the author connect these strands to their own research questions? Where is theory in the lit review, and how is it incorporated (e.g., Is it a separate strand of its own or is it inextricably linked with previous research in this area)?

One model of how to structure your literature review can be found in table 9.1. More tips, hints, and practices will be discussed later in the chapter.

Table 9.1. Model of Literature Review, Adopted from Calarco (2020:166)

Embracing Theory

A good research study will, in some form or another, use theory. Depending on your particular study (and possibly the preferences of the members of your committee), theory may be built into your literature review. Or it may form its own section in your research proposal/design (e.g., “literature review” followed by “theoretical framework”). In my own experience, I see a lot of graduate students grappling with the requirement to “include theory” in their research proposals. Things get a little squiggly here because there are different ways of incorporating theory into a study (Are you testing a theory? Are you generating a theory?), and based on these differences, your literature review proper may include works that describe, explain, and otherwise set forth theories, concepts, or frameworks you are interested in, or it may not do this at all. Sometimes a literature review sets forth what we know about a particular group or culture totally independent of what kinds of theoretical framework or particular concepts you want to explore. Indeed, the big point of your study might be to bring together a body of work with a theory that has never been applied to it previously. All this is to say that there is no one correct way to approach the use of theory and the writing about theory in your research proposal.

Students are often scared of embracing theory because they do not exactly understand what it is. Sometimes, it seems like an arbitrary requirement. You’re interested in a topic; maybe you’ve even done some research in the area and you have findings you want to report. And then a committee member reads over what you have and asks, “So what?” This question is a good clue that you are missing theory, the part that connects what you have done to what other researchers have done and are doing. You might stumble upon this rather accidentally and not know you are embracing theory, as in a case where you seek to replicate a prior study under new circumstances and end up finding that a particular correlation between behaviors only happens when mediated by something else. There’s theory in there, if you can pull it out and articulate it. Or it might be that you are motivated to do more research on racial microaggressions because you want to document their frequency in a particular setting, taking for granted the kind of critical race theoretical framework that has done the hard work of defining and conceptualizing “microaggressions” in the first place. In that case, your literature review could be a review of Critical Race Theory, specifically related to this one important concept. That’s the way to bring your study into a broader conversation while also acknowledging (and honoring) the hard work that has preceded you.

Rubin ( 2021 ) classifies ways of incorporating theory into case study research into four categories, each of which might be discussed somewhat differently in a literature review or theoretical framework section. The first, the least theoretical, is where you set out to study a “configurative idiographic case” ( 70 ) This is where you set out to describe a particular case, leaving yourself pretty much open to whatever you find. You are not expecting anything based on previous literature. This is actually pretty weak as far as research design goes, but it is probably the default for novice researchers. Your committee members should probably help you situate this in previous literature in some way or another. If they cannot, and it really does appear you are looking at something fairly new that no one else has bothered to research before, and you really are completely open to discovery, you might try using a Grounded Theory approach, which is a methodological approach that foregrounds the generation of theory. In that case, your “theory” section can be a discussion of “Grounded Theory” methodology (confusing, yes, but if you take some time to ponder, you will see how this works). You will still need a literature review, though. Ideally one that describes other studies that have ever looked at anything remotely like what you are looking at—parallel cases that have been researched.

The second approach is the “disciplined configurative case,” in which theory is applied to explain a particular case or topic. You are not trying to test the theory but rather assuming the theory is correct, as in the case of exploring microaggressions in a particular setting. In this case, you really do need to have a separate theory section in addition to the literature review, one in which you clearly define the theoretical framework, including any of its important concepts. You can use this section to discuss how other researchers have used the concepts and note any discrepancies in definitions or operationalization of those concepts. This way you will be sure to design your study so that it speaks to and with other researchers. If everyone who is writing about microaggressions has a different definition of them, it is hard for others to compare findings or make any judgments about their prevalence (or any number of other important characteristics). Your literature review section may then stand alone and describe previous research in the particular area or setting, irrespective of the kinds of theory underlying those studies.

The third approach is “heuristic,” one in which you seek to identify new variables, hypotheses, mechanisms, or paths not yet explained by a theory or theoretical framework. In a way, you are generating new theory, but it is probably more accurate to say that you are extending or deepening preexisting theory. In this case, having a single literature review that is focused on the theory and the ways the theory has been applied and understood (with all its various mechanisms and pathways) is probably your best option. The focus of the literature reviewed is less on the case and more on the theory you are seeking to extend.

The final approach is “theory testing,” which is much rarer in qualitative studies than in quantitative, where this is the default approach. Theory-testing cases are those where a particular case is used to see if an existing theory is accurate or accurate under particular circumstances. As with the heuristic approach, your literature review will probably draw heavily on previous uses of the theory, but you may end up having a special section specifically about cases very close to your own . In other words, the more your study approaches theory testing, the more likely there is to be a set of similar studies to draw on or even one important key study that you are setting your own study up in parallel to in order to find out if the theory generated there operates here.

If we wanted to get very technical, it might be useful to distinguish theoretical frameworks properly from conceptual frameworks. The latter are a bit looser and, given the nature of qualitative research, often fit exploratory studies. Theoretical frameworks rely on specific theories and are essential for theory-testing studies. Conceptual frameworks can pull in specific concepts or ideas that may or may not be linked to particular theories. Think about it this way: A theory is a story of how the world works. Concepts don’t presume to explain the whole world but instead are ways to approach phenomena to help make sense of them. Microaggressions are concepts that are linked to Critical Race Theory. One could contextualize one’s study within Critical Race Theory and then draw various concepts, such as that of microaggressions from the overall theoretical framework. Or one could bracket out the master theory or framework and employ the concept of microaggression more opportunistically as a phenomenon of interest. If you are unsure of what theory you are using, you might want to frame a more practical conceptual framework in your review of the literature.

Helpful Tips

How to maintain good notes for what your read.

Over the years, I have developed various ways of organizing notes on what I read. At first, I used a single sheet of full-size paper with a preprinted list of questions and points clearly addressed on the front side, leaving the second side for more reflective comments and free-form musings about what I read, why it mattered, and how it might be useful for my research. Later, I developed a system in which I use a single 4″ × 6″ note card for each book I read. I try only to use the front side (and write very small), leaving the back for comments that are about not just this reading but things to do or examine or consider based on the reading. These notes often mean nothing to anyone else picking up the card, but they make sense to me. I encourage you to find an organizing system that works for you. Then when you set out to compose a literature review, instead of staring at five to ten books or a dozen articles, you will have ten neatly printed pages or notecards or files that have distilled what is important to know about your reading.

It is also a good idea to store this data digitally, perhaps through a reference manager. I use RefWorks, but I also recommend EndNote or any other system that allows you to search institutional databases. Your campus library will probably provide access to one of these or another system. Most systems will allow you to export references from another manager if and when you decide to move to another system. Reference managers allow you to sort through all your literature by descriptor, author, year, and so on. Even so, I personally like to have the ability to manually sort through my index cards, recategorizing things I have read as I go. I use RefWorks to keep a record of what I have read, with proper citations, so I can create bibliographies more easily, and I do add in a few “notes” there, but the bulk of my notes are kept in longhand.

What kinds of information should you include from your reading? Here are some bulleted suggestions from Calarco ( 2020:113–114 ), with my own emendations:

• Citation . If you are using a reference manager, you can import the citation and then, when you are ready to create a bibliography, you can use a provided menu of citation styles, which saves a lot of time. If you’ve originally formatted in Chicago Style but the journal you are writing for wants APA style, you can change your entire bibliography in less than a minute. When using a notecard for a book, I include author, title, date as well as the library call number (since most of what I read I pull from the library). This is something RefWorks is not able to do, and it helps when I categorize.

I begin each notecard with an “intro” section, where I record the aims, goals, and general point of the book/article as explained in the introductory sections (which might be the preface, the acknowledgments, or the first two chapters). I then draw a bold line underneath this part of the notecard. Everything after that should be chapter specific. Included in this intro section are things such as the following, recommended by Calarco ( 2020 ):

• Key background . “Two to three short bullet points identifying the theory/prior research on which the authors are building and defining key terms.”
• Data/methods . “One or two short bullet points with information about the source of the data and the method of analysis, with a note if this is a novel or particularly effective example of that method.” I use [M] to signal methodology on my notecard, which might read, “[M] Int[erview]s (n-35), B[lack]/W[hite] voters” (I need shorthand to fit on my notecard!).
• Research question . “Stated as briefly as possible.” I always provide page numbers so I can go back and see exactly how this was stated (sometimes, in qualitative research, there are multiple research questions, and they cannot be stated simply).
• Argument/contributions . “Two to three short bullet points briefly describing the authors’ answer to the central research question and its implication for research, theory, and practice.” I use [ARG] for argument to signify the argument, and I make sure this is prominently visible on my notecard. I also provide page numbers here.

For me, all of this fits in the “intro” section, which, if this is a theoretically rich, methodologically sound book, might take up a third or even half of the front page of my notecard. Beneath the bold underline, I report specific findings or particulars of the book as they emerge chapter by chapter. Calarco’s ( 2020 ) next step is the following:

• Key findings . “Three to four short bullet points identifying key patterns in the data that support the authors’ argument.”

All that remains is writing down thoughts that occur upon finishing the article/book. I use the back of the notecard for these kinds of notes. Often, they reach out to other things I have read (e.g., “Robinson reminds me of Crusoe here in that both are looking at the effects of social isolation, but I think Robinson makes a stronger argument”). Calarco ( 2020 ) concludes similarly with the following:

• Unanswered questions . “Two to three short bullet points that identify key limitations of the research and/or questions the research did not answer that could be answered in future research.”

As I mentioned, when I first began taking notes like this, I preprinted pages with prompts for “research question,” “argument,” and so on. This was a great way to remind myself to look for these things in particular. You can do the same, adding whatever preprinted sections make sense to you, given what you are studying and the important aspects of your discipline. The other nice thing about the preprinted forms is that it keeps your writing to a minimum—you cannot write more than the allotted space, even if you might want to, preventing your notes from spiraling out of control. This can be helpful when we are new to a subject and everything seems worth recording!

After years of discipline, I have finally settled on my notecard approach. I have thousands of notecards, organized in several index card filing boxes stacked in my office. On the top right of each card is a note of the month/day I finished reading the item. I can remind myself what I read in the summer of 2010 if the need or desire ever arose to do so…those invaluable notecards are like a memento of what my brain has been up to!

Where to Start Looking for Literature

Your university library should provide access to one of several searchable databases for academic books and articles. My own preference is JSTOR, a service of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization that works to advance and preserve knowledge and to improve teaching and learning through the use of digital technologies. JSTOR allows you to search by several keywords and to narrow your search by type of material (articles or books). For many disciplines, the “literature” of the literature review is expected to be peer-reviewed “articles,” but some disciplines will also value books and book chapters. JSTOR is particularly useful for article searching. You can submit several keywords and see what is returned, and you can also narrow your search by a particular journal or discipline. If your discipline has one or two key journals (e.g., the American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociological Review are key for sociology), you might want to go directly to those journals’ websites and search for your topic area. There is an art to when to cast your net widely and when to refine your search, and you may have to tack back and forth to ensure that you are getting all that is relevant but not getting bogged down in all studies that might have some marginal relevance.

Some articles will carry more weight than others, and you can use applications like Google Scholar to see which articles have made and are continuing to make larger impacts on your discipline. Find these articles and read them carefully; use their literature review and the sources cited in those articles to make sure you are capturing what is relevant. This is actually a really good way of finding relevant books—only the most impactful will make it into the citations of journals. Over time, you will notice that a handful of articles (or books) are cited so often that when you see, say, Armstrong and Hamilton ( 2015 ), you know exactly what book this is without looking at the full cite. This is when you know you are in the conversation.

You might also approach a professor whose work is broadly in the area of your interest and ask them to recommend one or two “important” foundational articles or books. You can then use the references cited in those recommendations to build up your literature. Just be careful: some older professors’ knowledge of the literature (and I reluctantly add myself here) may be a bit outdated! It is best that the article or book whose references and sources you use to build your body of literature be relatively current.

Keep a List of Your Keywords

When using searchable databases, it is a good idea to keep a list of all the keywords you use as you go along so that (1) you do not needlessly duplicate your efforts and (2) you can more easily adjust your search as you get a better sense of what you are looking for. I suggest you keep a separate file or even a small notebook for this and you date your search efforts.

Here’s an example:

Table 9.2. Keep a List of Your Keywords

Think Laterally

How to find the various strands of literature to combine? Don’t get stuck on finding the exact same research topic you think you are interested in. In the female gymnast example, I recommended that my student consider looking for studies of ballerinas, who also suffer sports injuries and around whom there is a similar culture of silence. It turned out that there was in fact research about my student’s particular questions, just not about the subjects she was interested in. You might do something similar. Don’t get stuck looking for too direct literature but think about the broader phenomenon of interest or analogous cases.

Read Outside the Canon

Some scholars’ work gets cited by everyone all the time. To some extent, this is a very good thing, as it helps establish the discipline. For example, there are a lot of “Bourdieu scholars” out there (myself included) who draw ideas, concepts, and quoted passages from Bourdieu. This makes us recognizable to one another and is a way of sharing a common language (e.g., where “cultural capital” has a particular meaning to those versed in Bourdieusian theory). There are empirical studies that get cited over and over again because they are excellent studies but also because there is an “echo chamber effect” going on, where knowing to cite this study marks you as part of the club, in the know, and so on. But here’s the problem with this: there are hundreds if not thousands of excellent studies out there that fail to get appreciated because they are crowded out by the canon. Sometimes this happens because they are published in “lower-ranked” journals and are never read by a lot of scholars who don’t have time to read anything other than the “big three” in their field. Other times this happens because the author falls outside of the dominant social networks in the field and thus is unmentored and fails to get noticed by those who publish a lot in those highly ranked and visible spaces. Scholars who fall outside the dominant social networks and who publish outside of the top-ranked journals are in no way less insightful than their peers, and their studies may be just as rigorous and relevant to your work, so it is important for you to take some time to read outside the canon. Due to how a person’s race, gender, and class operate in the academy, there is also a matter of social justice and ethical responsibility involved here: “When you focus on the most-cited research, you’re more likely to miss relevant research by women and especially women of color, whose research tends to be under-cited in most fields. You’re also more likely to miss new research, research by junior scholars, and research in other disciplines that could inform your work. Essentially, it is important to read and cite responsibly, which means checking that you’re not just reading and citing the same white men and the same old studies that everyone has cited before you” ( Calarco 2020:112 ).

Consider Multiple Uses for Literature

Throughout this chapter, I’ve referred to the literature of interest in a rather abstract way, as what is relevant to your study. But there are many different ways previous research can be relevant to your study. The most basic use of the literature is the “findings”—for example, “So-and-so found that Canadian working-class students were concerned about ‘fitting in’ to the culture of college, and I am going to look at a similar question here in the US.” But the literature may be of interest not for its findings but theoretically—for example, employing concepts that you want to employ in your own study. Bourdieu’s definition of social capital may have emerged in a study of French professors, but it can still be relevant in a study of, say, how parents make choices about what preschools to send their kids to (also a good example of lateral thinking!).

If you are engaged in some novel methodological form of data collection or analysis, you might look for previous literature that has attempted that. I would not recommend this for undergraduate research projects, but for graduate students who are considering “breaking the mold,” find out if anyone has been there before you. Even if their study has absolutely nothing else in common with yours, it is important to acknowledge that previous work.

Describing Gaps in the Literature

First, be careful! Although it is common to explain how your research adds to, builds upon, and fills in gaps in the previous research (see all four literature review examples in this chapter for this), there is a fine line between describing the gaps and misrepresenting previous literature by failing to conduct a thorough review of the literature. A little humility can make a big difference in your presentation. Instead of “This is the first study that has looked at how firefighters juggle childcare during forest fire season,” say, “I use the previous literature on how working parents juggling childcare and the previous ethnographic studies of firefighters to explore how firefighters juggle childcare during forest fire season.” You can even add, “To my knowledge, no one has conducted an ethnographic study in this specific area, although what we have learned from X about childcare and from Y about firefighters would lead us to expect Z here.” Read more literature review sections to see how others have described the “gaps” they are filling.

Use Concept Mapping

Concept mapping is a helpful tool for getting your thoughts in order and is particularly helpful when thinking about the “literature” foundational to your particular study. Concept maps are also known as mind maps, which is a delightful way to think about them. Your brain is probably abuzz with competing ideas in the early stages of your research design. Write/draw them on paper, and then try to categorize and move the pieces around into “clusters” that make sense to you. Going back to the gymnasts example, my student might have begun by jotting down random words of interest: gymnasts * sports * coaches * female gymnasts * stress * injury * don’t complain * women in sports * bad coaching * anxiety/stress * careers in sports * pain. She could then have begun clustering these into relational categories (bad coaching, don’t complain culture) and simple “event” categories (injury, stress). This might have led her to think about reviewing literature in these two separate aspects and then literature that put them together. There is no correct way to draw a concept map, as they are wonderfully specific to your mind. There are many examples you can find online.

Ask Yourself, “How Is This Sociology (or Political Science or Public Policy, Etc.)?”

Rubin ( 2021:82 ) offers this suggestion instead of asking yourself the “So what?” question to get you thinking about what bridges there are between your study and the body of research in your particular discipline. This is particularly helpful for thinking about theory. Rubin further suggests that if you are really stumped, ask yourself, “What is the really big question that all [fill in your discipline here] care about?” For sociology, it might be “inequality,” which would then help you think about theories of inequality that might be helpful in framing your study on whatever it is you are studying—OnlyFans? Childcare during COVID? Aging in America? I can think of some interesting ways to frame questions about inequality for any of those topics. You can further narrow it by focusing on particular aspects of inequality (Gender oppression? Racial exclusion? Heteronormativity?). If your discipline is public policy, the big questions there might be, How does policy get enacted, and what makes a policy effective? You can then take whatever your particular policy interest is—tax reform, student debt relief, cap-and-trade regulations—and apply those big questions. Doing so would give you a handle on what is otherwise an intolerably vague subject (e.g., What about student debt relief?).

Sometimes finding you are in new territory means you’ve hit the jackpot, and sometimes it means you’ve traveled out of bounds for your discipline. The jackpot scenario is wonderful. You are doing truly innovative research that is combining multiple literatures or is addressing a new or under-examined phenomenon of interest, and your research has the potential to be groundbreaking. Congrats! But that’s really hard to do, and it might be more likely that you’ve traveled out of bounds, by which I mean, you are no longer in your discipline . It might be that no one has written about this thing—at least within your field— because no one in your field actually cares about this topic . ( Rubin 2021:83 ; emphases added)

Don’t Treat This as a Chore

Don’t treat the literature review as a chore that has to be completed, but see it for what it really is—you are building connections to other researchers out there. You want to represent your discipline or area of study fairly and adequately. Demonstrate humility and your knowledge of previous research. Be part of the conversation.

Supplement: Two More Literature Review Examples

Elites by harvey ( 2011 ).

In the last two decades, there has been a small but growing literature on elites. In part, this has been a result of the resurgence of ethnographic research such as interviews, focus groups, case studies, and participant observation but also because scholars have become increasingly interested in understanding the perspectives and behaviors of leaders in business, politics, and society as a whole. Yet until recently, our understanding of some of the methodological challenges of researching elites has lagged behind our rush to interview them.

There is no clear-cut definition of the term elite, and given its broad understanding across the social sciences, scholars have tended to adopt different approaches. Zuckerman (1972) uses the term ultraelites to describe individuals who hold a significant amount of power within a group that is already considered elite. She argues, for example, that US senators constitute part of the country’s political elite but that among them are the ultraelites: a “subset of particularly powerful or prestigious influentials” (160). She suggests that there is a hierarchy of status within elite groups. McDowell (1998) analyses a broader group of “professional elites” who are employees working at different levels for merchant and investment banks in London. She classifies this group as elite because they are “highly skilled, professionally competent, and class-specific” (2135). Parry (1998:2148) uses the term hybrid elites in the context of the international trade of genetic material because she argues that critical knowledge exists not in traditional institutions “but rather as increasingly informal, hybridised, spatially fragmented, and hence largely ‘invisible,’ networks of elite actors.” Given the undertheorization of the term elite, Smith (2006) recognizes why scholars have shaped their definitions to match their respondents . However, she is rightly critical of the underlying assumption that those who hold professional positions necessarily exert as much influence as initially perceived. Indeed, job titles can entirely misrepresent the role of workers and therefore are by no means an indicator of elite status (Harvey 2010).

Many scholars have used the term elite in a relational sense, defining them either in terms of their social position compared to the researcher or compared to the average person in society (Stephens 2007). The problem with this definition is there is no guarantee that an elite subject will necessarily translate this power and authority in an interview setting. Indeed, Smith (2006) found that on the few occasions she experienced respondents wanting to exert their authority over her, it was not from elites but from relatively less senior workers. Furthermore, although business and political elites often receive extensive media training, they are often scrutinized by television and radio journalists and therefore can also feel threatened in an interview, particularly in contexts that are less straightforward to prepare for such as academic interviews. On several occasions, for instance, I have been asked by elite respondents or their personal assistants what they need to prepare for before the interview, which suggests that they consider the interview as some form of challenge or justification for what they do.

In many cases, it is not necessarily the figureheads or leaders of organizations and institutions who have the greatest claim to elite status but those who hold important social networks, social capital, and strategic positions within social structures because they are better able to exert influence (Burt 1992; Parry 1998; Smith 2005; Woods 1998). An elite status can also change, with people both gaining and losing theirs over time. In addition, it is geographically specific, with people holding elite status in some but not all locations. In short, it is clear that the term elite can mean many things in different contexts, which explains the range of definitions. The purpose here is not to critique these other definitions but rather to highlight the variety of perspectives.

When referring to my research, I define elites as those who occupy senior-management- and board-level positions within organizations. This is a similar scope of definition to Zuckerman’s (1972) but focuses on a level immediately below her ultraelite subjects. My definition is narrower than McDowell’s (1998) because it is clear in the context of my research that these people have significant decision-making influence within and outside of the firm and therefore present a unique challenge to interview. I deliberately use the term elite more broadly when drawing on examples from the theoretical literature in order to compare my experiences with those who have researched similar groups.

”Changing Dispositions among the Upwardly Mobile” by Curl, Lareau, and Wu ( 2018 )

There is growing interest in the role of cultural practices in undergirding the social stratification system. For example, Lamont et al. (2014) critically assess the preoccupation with economic dimensions of social stratification and call for more developed cultural models of the transmission of inequality. The importance of cultural factors in the maintenance of social inequality has also received empirical attention from some younger scholars, including Calarco (2011, 2014) and Streib (2015). Yet questions remain regarding the degree to which economic position is tied to cultural sensibilities and the ways in which these cultural sensibilities are imprinted on the self or are subject to change. Although habitus is a core concept in Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction, there is limited empirical attention to the precise areas of the habitus that can be subject to change during upward mobility as well as the ramifications of these changes for family life.

In Bourdieu’s (1984) highly influential work on the importance of class-based cultural dispositions, habitus is defined as a “durable system of dispositions” created in childhood. The habitus provides a “matrix of perceptions” that seems natural while also structuring future actions and pathways. In many of his writings, Bourdieu emphasized the durability of cultural tastes and dispositions and did not consider empirically whether these dispositions might be changed or altered throughout one’s life (Swartz 1997). His theoretical work does permit the possibility of upward mobility and transformation, however, through the ability of the habitus to “improvise” or “change” due to “new experiences” (Friedman 2016:131). Researchers have differed in opinion on the durability of the habitus and its ability to change (King 2000). Based on marital conflict in cross-class marriages, for instance, Streib (2015) argues that cultural dispositions of individuals raised in working-class families are deeply embedded and largely unchanging. In a somewhat different vein, Horvat and Davis (2011:152) argue that young adults enrolled in an alternative educational program undergo important shifts in their self-perception, such as “self-esteem” and their “ability to accomplish something of value.” Others argue there is variability in the degree to which habitus changes dependent on life experience and personality (Christodoulou and Spyridakis 2016). Recently, additional studies have investigated the habitus as it intersects with lifestyle through the lens of meaning making (Ambrasat et al. 2016). There is, therefore, ample discussion of class-based cultural practices in self-perception (Horvat and Davis 2011), lifestyle (Ambrasat et al. 2016), and other forms of taste (Andrews 2012; Bourdieu 1984), yet researchers have not sufficiently delineated which aspects of the habitus might change through upward mobility or which specific dimensions of life prompt moments of class-based conflict.

Bourdieu (1999:511; 2004) acknowledged simmering tensions between the durable aspects of habitus and those aspects that have been transformed—that is, a “fractured” or “cleft” habitus. Others have explored these tensions as a “divided” or “fragmented” habitus (Baxter and Britton 2001; Lee and Kramer 2013). Each of these conceptions of the habitus implies that changes in cultural dispositions are possible but come with costs. Exploration of the specific aspects of one’s habitus that can change and generate conflict contributes to this literature.

Scholars have also studied the costs associated with academic success for working-class undergraduates (Hurst 2010; Lee and Kramer 2013; London 1989; Reay 2017; Rondini 2016; Stuber 2011), but we know little about the lasting effects on adults. For instance, Lee and Kramer (2013) point to cross-class tensions as family and friends criticize upwardly mobile individuals for their newly acquired cultural dispositions. Documenting the tension many working-class students experience with their friends and families of origin, they find that the source of their pain or struggle is “shaped not only by their interactions with non-mobile family and friends but also within their own minds, by their own assessments of their social positions, and by how those positions are interpreted by others” (Lee and Kramer 2013:29). Hurst (2010) also explores the experiences of undergraduates who have been academically successful and the costs associated with that success. She finds that decisions about “class allegiance and identity” are required aspects of what it means to “becom[e] educated” (4) and that working-class students deal with these cultural changes differently. Jack (2014, 2016) also argues that there is diversity among lower-income students, which yields varied college experiences. Naming two groups, the “doubly disadvantaged” and the “privileged poor,” he argues that previous experience with “elite environments” (2014:456) prior to college informs students’ ability to take on dominant cultural practices, particularly around engagement, such as help seeking or meeting with professors (2016). These studies shed light on the role college might play as a “lever for mobility” (2016:15) and discuss the pain and difficulty associated with upward mobility among undergraduates, but the studies do not illuminate how these tensions unfold in adulthood. Neither have they sufficiently addressed potential enduring tensions with extended family members as well as the specific nature of the difficulties.

Some scholars point to the positive outcomes upwardly mobile youth (Lehmann 2009) and adults (Stuber 2005) experience when they maintain a different habitus than their newly acquired class position, although, as Jack (2014, 2016) shows, those experiences may vary depending on one’s experience with elite environments in their youth. Researchers have not sufficiently explored the specific aspects of the habitus that upwardly mobile adults change or the conflicts that emerge with family and childhood friends as they reach adulthood and experience colliding social worlds. We contribute to this scholarship with clear examples of self-reported changes to one’s cultural dispositions in three specific areas: “horizons,” food and health, and communication. We link these changes to enduring tension with family members, friends, and colleagues and explore varied responses to this tension based on race.

Further Readings

Bloomberg, Linda Dale, and Marie F. Volpe. 2012. Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. In keeping with its general approach to qualitative research, includes a “road map” for conducting a literature review.

Hart, Chris. 1998. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . London: SAGE. A how-to book dedicated entirely to conducting a literature review from a British perspective. Useful for both undergraduate and graduate students.

Machi, Lawrence A., and Brenda T. McEvoy. 2022. The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success . 4th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. A well-organized guidebook complete with reflection sections to prompt successful thinking about your literature review.

Ridley, Diana. 2008. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . London: SAGE. A highly recommended companion to conducting a literature review for doctoral-level students.

The process of systematically searching through pre-existing studies (“literature”) on the subject of research; also, the section of a presentation in which the pre-existing literature is discussed.

Follow-up questions used in a semi-structured interview  to elicit further elaboration.  Suggested prompts can be included in the interview guide  to be used/deployed depending on how the initial question was answered or if the topic of the prompt does not emerge spontaneously.

A tool for identifying relationships among ideas by visually representing them on paper.  Most concept maps depict ideas as boxes or circles (also called nodes), which are structured hierarchically and connected with lines or arrows (also called arcs). These lines are labeled with linking words and phrases to help explain the connections between concepts.  Also known as mind mapping.

The people who are the subjects of an interview-based qualitative study. In general, they are also known as the participants, and for purposes of IRBs they are often referred to as the human subjects of the research.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Open access
• Published: 23 July 2024

The “what, why, and how?” of story completion in health services research: a scoping review

• Candelyn Yu Pong 1 ,
• Nicola J. Roberts 4 &
• Elaine Lum 1 , 2 , 3  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  24 , Article number:  159 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

121 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The story completion method provides a different way of doing qualitative research. We note the emergent popularity of this method in health-related research, while much remains to be negotiated in terms of best practices for such studies. This scoping review aims to provide a synthesis on how researchers have used the story completion method in health services research. We offer implications for research and practice for further discussion by the scholarly community.

We used the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Six databases were searched for published literature till March 1, 2023: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals Online databases, and SAGE Research Methods. We included primary studies of any study design using the story completion method in health services research.

A total of 17 studies were included. Findings suggest that the story completion method is useful for research on sensitive topics, and affords the use of comparative study designs and large sample sizes which may be difficult with conventional qualitative research methods. More than 80% of included studies used story completion as the sole method. However, the data collected from this method were limited in terms of the inferences that can be drawn; and richness of participant responses may vary widely. Less than 30% of included studies reported piloting of the story stems. Most studies were conducted online and analyzed qualitatively, though the story stem design and sample size varied widely.

The story completion method, with its attendant affordances for larger sample sizes, comparative study designs, and streamlined data collection is an innovative and useful stand-alone or adjunct qualitative method for health services research.

Peer Review reports

Qualitative methods increasingly underpin robust population health research, health services research, and implementation research [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. The insights provided by qualitative methods allow us to appropriately design, execute, and evaluate a plethora of healthcare programs and innovations, including digital health and AI-augmented healthcare [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Qualitative methods used in these fields include interviews and focus groups. These methods are often time and resource intensive [ 7 ], and arguably less efficacious in eliciting uncensored views especially for topics that are socio-culturally sensitive [ 8 ]. In that, participants may adjust their positions on an issue to align with what they perceive as accepted social or cultural discourses, perhaps to avoid potential repercussions [ 9 ].

Story completion is a method not often used in population health, health services, and implementation research. Given its attributes, apart from being used on its own to explore socio-culturally sensitive topics, story completion promises to be a useful adjunct to semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The story completion method has already garnered much interest in the scholarly community, with several published discussions regarding its utility and issues [ 10 , 11 ], flexibility as a method across disciplines [ 12 ], and potential for decolonizing research methodologies [ 13 ].

What is story completion?

Story completion, first used in quantitative developmental psychology research and in psychoanalysis as a projective technique for clinical assessment, was subsequently re-developed as a qualitative method by Kitzinger for feminist research [ 8 ]. Importantly, Kitzinger re-conceptualized story completion in the mid-1990s as a way “to access not just psychological meanings but also social discourses” [ 8 ]. More recently, Clarke and colleagues re-ignited interest in this method with the publication of a special issue “Using Story Completion Methods in Qualitative Research” in the Qualitative Research in Psychology journal [ 8 ]. Although story completion originated as a pen-and-paper task, this method has been increasingly administered online. Hence, the moniker, digital story completion.

In typical story completion studies, participants are presented with one or several hypothetical scenarios that act as writing prompts (story stems) and asked to complete the story however they like (Table 1 ). In example 1, researchers used story completion as a stand-alone qualitative method to collect narratives from Australian adults regarding their views on the COVID-19 restrictions implemented, and how it affected their health and well-being [ 14 ]. The story completion method was chosen due to its ability to examine social discourses, meanings, norms, and assumptions; and researchers were interested to understand how individuals would react to constantly changing situations, such as COVID-19 restrictions [ 14 ]. In example 2, researchers also used story completion as a stand-alone method to explore how evangelical Christians perceive depression [ 15 ]. Story completion method was chosen in this case due to the stigma associated with depression or mental health in general; and as this method does not explicitly obtain respondents’ personal experiences or views, it reduces the risk of social desirability bias [ 15 ].

A key advantage of the story completion method is its ability to side-step solely direct personal experiences to include socio-cultural discourse and representations, which enables researchers to understand meaning-making frameworks of a particular social group [ 10 ]. Other notable advantages of the method include the ability to accommodate larger samples of participants relative to traditional qualitative methods, and the contentious use of comparative study designs, uncommon in qualitative research [ 10 ].

A perceived weakness of this method has to do with the invitation to participants to be imaginative when responding to the story stem, triggering some researchers (and users of research) to be concerned that “anything goes.” To alleviate this concern, we recognize the bi-directional connection between imagination and experience, where imagination is influenced by an individual’s experiences [ 16 ] and “experiences are partly constituted through the stories within [one’s] socio-cultural landscapes [ 17 ]. So, despite its apparent playfulness, story completion holds merit as a sole method and as a useful adjunct to traditional qualitative methods in multiple- or mixed-methods studies.

Rationale for this review

We observed a steady increase via PubMed in the number of studies using story completion for health-related research in the last five years. While each study justifies and explains its use, it is our opinion that much needs to be clarified and negotiated about best practices for this method. For example, how should story stems be derived? How and when to use comparator groups? How large should the sample be to yield adequate data for meaningful analysis? These questions pertain to future discussions about best practices or ‘shoulds’. However, we first need to understand the current landscape. In this scoping review we elicited how the story completion method has been used in health-related research. Specifically, we were interested in: (a) the target populations and/or health conditions, (b) the study designs used, (c) how story stems were derived, (d) how data were analyzed, (e) other research methods used to triangulate data from the story completion method, and (f) strengths and weaknesses of the method stated by study authors. Our findings serve as a useful resource or starting point for health services researchers interested in using the story completion method, when planning or designing their study.

Search strategy

This study was carried out in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping review [ 18 ]. The protocol was published on Open Science Framework (available here: https://osf.io/rk2e6/ ) [ 19 ]. We developed a search strategy using the PRESS guidelines [ 20 ] and consulted university librarians for refinement around the following key terms: story completion and health services research (Additional File 1 ). We searched six databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals Online databases, and SAGE Research Methods for published literature till March 1, 2023.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria: a primary study of any study design using the story completion method in health services research. For the purposes of this review, we defined story completion as a type of qualitative research method where study participants are asked to complete a story based on an assigned story “stem” or opening [ 8 ], and health services research as an interdisciplinary study of scientific investigation that explores how social determinants, financial policies, organizational systems and structures, medical technology, and individual actions influence cost, access, quality of healthcare, and also our well-being and health [ 21 ]. This definition of health services research does not confine it to the provision of health services or health structures, but also includes the exploration of how social determinants and individual behaviors affect health and well-being. The World Health Organization recognizes social determinants such as social exclusion and discrimination as important factors that can affect access to healthcare and health equity in negative ways [ 22 ]. Hence, studies investigating perceptions of potentially stigmatizing conditions or sexual orientations which are likely to influence how/whether those individuals seek help/healthcare have been included. Studies were excluded if they were editorials, commentaries, discussion papers, methodological papers (non-empirical), conference papers, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or study protocols.

Selection of studies

Three researchers (CP, NJR, EL) independently conducted title/abstract and full text screening of studies captured by the search strategy. Conflicts at both screening stages were resolved through discussion by two lead researchers (NJR, EL). Covidence ® , a web-based software for conducting reviews (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) and Endnote 20 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) were used for screening and managing citations respectively. Studies in languages other than English were translated using ChatGPT (OpenAI, CA, USA) and screened by two researchers (CP, EL), to determine eligibility.

Data extraction and data analysis

A standardized form was developed for data extraction using Google Forms. The following data were extracted: publication year, author, country of study, characteristics of the study population, study aim(s), study design, description of the story completion study, sample size, how story stems were derived, how data was captured and analyzed including type of analysis (e.g. Braun & Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, etc.), other research methods used to triangulate data (e.g. semi-structured interviews, surveys, focus groups, etc.), reported strengths and weaknesses of the story completion method, assumptions and underlying theories.

The form was piloted by three researchers (CP, NJR, EL) using three included studies, and refined accordingly. How we operationalized data extraction is shown in Additional File 2 . Two researchers (CP, EL) independently completed data extraction for the remaining studies. Publication year and sample size were extracted as numerical values. Other data points expressed as textual data were summarized rather than extracted verbatim from included studies, apart from author, country of study, and study aims. For example, data point “characteristics of the study population” were summarized as “Australia-based adults aged 18 and above during the COVID-19 pandemic”, “adolescents aged 14–25 years old with complex regional pain syndrome” and so forth. Descriptive statistics, where appropriate, were used to summarize extracted data in Excel ® (Version 1808 (Microsoft)). For example, to provide a numerical count of how many included studies were single country versus multi-country, and so forth.

The search yielded 278 studies. After removing 75 duplicates, 203 studies remained for screening. At full text screening stage there were nine studies reported in languages other than English which were translated using ChatGPT; these did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. A total of 17 studies were included in this review (Fig.  1 ). The list of included studies is provided as Additional File 3 .

PRISMA-scoping review flow diagram [ 18 ]

Study characteristics

The main characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table  2 . The majority were single country studies (15/17, 88·2%), originating from the European region (9/17, 52·9%) and Western Pacific region (4/17, 23·5%). Most of the studies were published between 2021 and 2023 (9/17, 52·9%). In terms of the study design used, of the 17 studies, 13 (76·5%) were qualitative, three (3/17, 17·6%) used a mixed-method design, and one (1/17, 5·9%) used a multi-method design (Table  2 ). We used the following definitions for mixed-method and multi-method studies, respectively. Mixed-method studies use two or more methods in a single research project comprising both qualitative and quantitative approaches, that involves the connection, integration, or linking of these two approaches [ 23 ]. Multi-method studies use two or more solely qualitative or solely quantitative methods in a single research project [ 24 ]. In addition, although the story completion method allows for comparative study designs, this was adopted by only three studies (3/17, 17·6%) [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].

Description of the story completion study

Most studies asked participants to complete one story stem each, with the exception of five studies (5/17, 29·4%) which asked each participant to complete either two [ 30 , 31 , 32 ] or three story stems [ 33 , 34 ]. Of these five studies, four provided multiple story stems to allow a diversity of illnesses, genders, socio-economic groups, or occupations to be included in the stem [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]; while one did not provide a rationale for having multiple stems. Story stems provided were fairly brief, consisting of two to five short sentences. Examples of story stems can be found in Table 1 .

For single story stem studies ( n  = 12), most provided the same story opening to every participant, except three (3/12, 25.0%) which adopted a comparative design where study authors developed two story stems of the same narrative but with different protagonists in terms of gender [ 25 , 26 ] or occupation [ 27 ]. Participants were allocated [ 25 ] or randomly allocated to either stem [ 26 , 27 ]. Another study (1/12, 8.3%) randomized each participant to one of three story stems pertaining to the research, with results from each stem analyzed separately [ 35 ]. Of the five multi-story stems studies, three (3/5, 60.0%) provided the story openings in the same order for participants [ 31 , 33 , 34 ]. Two studies (2/5, 40.0%) counterbalanced the order of the story openings with half the participants presented with the first story stem followed by the second story stem while the other half were presented with the second story stem followed by the first [ 30 , 32 ].

Most studies provided participant guidelines for either time (minutes) and/or length (number of words/ characters/ sentences) for story responses (10/17, 58·8%), though these varied widely among studies (Table  3 ). Sample size varied widely among studies as well; ranging from 17 to as large as 227 (Table  3 ).

Populations studied and health conditions

Study aims, populations studied, and health conditions are shown in Table  3 . Study participants were recruited from general populations or subgroups of general populations (e.g. adolescents, gay men), or were working adults in the healthcare industry and/or students in a health-related course. Most studies targeted a particular health condition (13/17, 76·5%). Of those that did, six studies focused on mental health conditions (6/17, 35·3%), three on chronic diseases (3/17, 17·6%), and one on cancer (1/17, 5·9%).

Study aims of some included studies are socio-culturally sensitive. For example, in the study by Lloyd et al 2022 one of the aims was to “explore how self-harm is perceived” [ 36 ], while Walsh et al 2010 aimed to “explore the ways in which ‘anorexic’ and ‘bulimic’ young women are discursively constructed by those who neither self-identify as ‘eating disordered’ nor are involved in ‘eating disorder’ interventions” [ 32 ].

How story stems were derived

Story stems were constructed by study authors in most studies, except for four studies (4/17, 23.5%) where study authors reported using either published literature or a theoretical framework to inform the development of story stems [ 27 , 33 , 36 , 37 ], and one study (1/17, 5.9%) which derived and modified the story stems based on the Wallace (1956) measure [ 31 , 38 ]. The Wallace measure estimates how far into the future a person typically plans (future time perspective) and consists of two types of questions concerning timeframes about future actions or outcomes [ 38 ]. For example, the first type of question may ask participants to list 10 events that will occur in their lives and the age they would expect to be for each event. The second type of question asks participants to write endings to story stems (i.e. story completion) and to indicate the duration in which the story occurred (e.g. “x” minutes, days, years).

The majority of studies did not pre-test the story stems (12/17, 70·6%); of those that did, they were either piloted to ensure clarity [ 15 , 30 , 35 , 36 ] or to prevent potential narrowing of responses [ 9 ]. Most studies adopted third-person story stem(s), except two studies (2/17, 11.8%) that used a first-person story stem to allow participants to reflect on their perceived future [ 39 , 40 ].

How data was captured and analyzed

Twelve out of 17 studies (70·6%) administered the story completion task online. The remaining five studies (5/17, 29.4%) were administered either in-person [ 31 , 34 ], a combination of both in-person and online [ 9 ], or did not report the mode of data collection [ 30 , 32 ]. Most studies analyzed the data qualitatively (14/17, 82·4%), with Braun & Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis [ 41 ] as the most commonly used approach (12/17, 70·6%) (Table  2 ). However, three studies (3/17, 17.6%) applied a quantitative approach to the analysis of story completion data, as follows. The study by Nimbley et al. 2021 analyzed the stories collected using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program which identified and coded words against pre-selected categories pertaining to positive or negative emotions, social, and cognitive dimensions determined by study authors [ 39 ]. The LIWC program subsequently generated quantitative data in the form of frequencies (counts) and proportions of words against these categories, which were further analyzed using statistical programs such as SPSS [ 39 ]. In the study by Jones et al. 2009, participants were asked to complete two story stems and to also indicate the duration in which the story occurred (e.g. minutes, days, years). The duration was quantitatively analyzed (salient to their research question), while the stories collected were not subjected to further analysis [ 31 ]. The study by Tichenor et al. 1977 analyzed the stories collected via deductive coding using a schema of 12 categories pre-developed by study authors, then assigning a frequency score [ 34 ]. The rates of expression for each of these categories were standardized through dividing the frequency scores by the number of words written by participants and multiplying this number by a constant of 1000 [ 34 ].

Research methods used to triangulate data

The majority of studies did not use other research methods to triangulate the data from the story completion method, with the exception of two (2/17, 11.8%) that used surveys [ 30 , 34 ] and one that used semi-structured interviews (1/17, 5·9%) [ 40 ]. Of the two studies that used surveys to triangulate data, one conducted the survey prior to the story completion task [ 30 ] whilst the other did not specify the order in which the tasks were carried out [ 34 ]. The sole study that used semi-structured interviews conducted them after the story completion task to explore the stories crafted by participants in greater detail [ 40 ].

Reported strengths and weaknesses of the story completion method

The story completion method is reported to be useful for exploring sensitive topics and vulnerable populations [ 9 , 15 , 25 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 42 ] as it does not require participants to reveal their personal experiences [ 14 , 27 , 33 ]. Instead of actual behaviors, story completion method uncovers participants’ unconscious and subconscious patterns and ways of sense-making as well as perceptions towards a given scenario, beyond their lived experiences [ 9 , 14 , 15 , 27 , 35 , 42 ], thereby reducing the risk of social desirability bias [ 15 , 36 ].

Hence, this method reportedly allows study authors the potential to obtain rich data pertaining to both individual and collective experiences of major social events and problems [ 14 , 30 ] that may not be elicited through more conventional data collection methods [ 26 , 27 ]. Additionally, data from a larger group of participants can be collected more efficiently, relative to other forms of qualitative methods [ 26 , 40 ].

However, the story completion method is not without weaknesses. Study authors discerned that as the story completion method does not explicitly obtain participants’ personal experiences [ 15 , 27 , 36 ], it limits the inferences that can be derived from the findings [ 14 , 37 ]. When crafting responses, participants may exaggerate the protagonist’s life to produce a “good” story that they would otherwise not have done in a more conventional data collection method [ 32 ] or orientate their responses to include more social elements than what they would have otherwise given due to the type of story stem provided [ 40 ].

Additionally, study authors reported that participants’ engagement with the story stem varied widely. Some would provide complex and detailed responses while others produced superficial and short stories [ 25 ], and some may misinterpret the task and provide a theoretical account of the assigned story opening instead of completing the story [ 25 , 26 ]. Study authors also noted that in common with other qualitative research, it is hard to recruit male participants [ 26 ].

Underpinning philosophy

Most studies specified the ontology, epistemology, or theoretical lens used (10/17, 58·8%). The top three were social constructionism (4/17, 23·5%), critical realism (2/17, 11·8%), and epistemic contextualism (2/17, 11·8%) (Table  2 ). Study authors deemed the story completion method to be compatible with their selected underpinning philosophy, which was in turn used to inform interpretation of the narratives collected.

This scoping review provides a synthesis of how the story completion method has been used in health services research thus far. Our findings serve as a useful resource for health services researchers interested in exploring and using the story completion method, when planning or designing their study. We found several distinct advantages of the story completion method, suggesting its usefulness as either a sole or adjunct approach to undertaking qualitative research, provided its shortcomings are mitigated.

First, the story completion method enables large sample sizes as the collection of data can be done in a relatively efficient way, compared to traditional qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews. Several studies included in this scoping review reported sample sizes of over 100 [ 9 , 15 , 26 , 31 , 36 , 37 ], the largest being 227 [ 31 ]. In contrast, the average sample size was between 18 and 45 in a recent systematic analysis of sample sizes for interview-based studies published over a 15-year period in health research journals [ 43 ]. Second, the story completion method can accommodate comparative study designs, which is unusual in qualitative methods, and useful for systematically eliciting differences in variables salient to the research question (e.g. male/female, novice/expert, and so forth). An overview of the story completion method by Clarke et al. 2019 underscores that this advantage allows a more “nuanced understanding of how a particular phenomenon is socially constructed” [ 8 ]. Third, story completion is especially appropriate for research on sensitive topics as it minimizes the risk of social desirability bias, a common problem reported in qualitative health research literature [ 44 ]. This is because in contrast to qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews, the story completion method allows participants to respond to socio-culturally sensitive topics as a third party and to participate anonymously (assuming the story stem references a third party e.g. “Tom”, “Ali”, and data collection was conducted via an online platform). In our review, conditions that carry social stigma such as mental health issues and eating disorders, were target health conditions among included studies.

The shortcomings of the story completion method reported by study authors are acknowledged in methodological discussions about this innovative approach [ 10 , 11 ]. The non-intrusive data collection afforded by the story completion method might limit the inferences study authors can draw from the findings as responses might not reflect participants’ lived experiences [ 14 , 15 , 27 , 36 , 37 ]. However, Clarke et al. 2019 cautions that whether this constitutes a problem depends on the ontological stance taken: “Essentialist/realist/(post)positivist researchers may be concerned that data may not reflect or predict “real-life” behaviour. By contrast, for social constructionist or critical realist researchers interested in the sociocultural meanings or discourses people draw on when writing their stories, this critique holds no water” [ 8 ].

Additionally, story completion is a fixed self-administered task unlike other qualitative research methods such as semi-structured interviews or focus groups where researchers and participants interact to co-shape the research-in-progress. Hence, some participants may misinterpret the task [ 25 , 26 ] or provide responses that fall short of the study authors’ requirements or expectations. When confronted with such data, researchers need to judge whether these responses are sufficiently meaningful to warrant inclusion in the dataset for analysis [ 11 ]. Misinterpretation of the story completion task can be mitigated by piloting to ensure clarity [ 15 , 30 , 35 , 36 ] or to prevent potential narrowing of responses [ 9 ]. Yet, piloting of story stems was conducted by less than a third of included studies.

We note that most studies used story completion as the sole method rather than as an adjunct method. For example, other quantitative or qualitative research methods were not used to triangulate data from the story completion method. Admittedly, some research questions may not require more than a single method. However, the wider literature recognizes the potentially complementary pairing of the story completion method with another method such as semi-structured interviews [ 11 , 12 ].

Most studies adopted a qualitative approach to data analysis, with Braun & Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis [ 41 ] being the most prominently used. Story stems were brief to allow participants the freedom to construct their own stories; and story stem design varied widely, with the most common being participants completing a single third-person story stem, with the same story opening provided to all.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the pace of research has sped up significantly [ 45 ]. Researchers engaged in population health, health services, or implementation research have worked on ways to accelerate actionable outputs without compromising scientific rigor; for example, rapid qualitative analysis to reduce the time taken to analyze qualitative data [ 46 , 47 ] and methods to hasten on-the-ground implementation [ 48 ]. The story completion method, with its attendant affordances for larger sample sizes, comparative study designs, and streamlined data collection adds to these innovative methods.

Limitations and strengths

There are some limitations to this review. First, we may have missed capturing some studies as the search was restricted to peer-reviewed articles and we did not manually search the reference lists of included papers to identify potential studies for inclusion. Second, we did not include an assessment of the reporting quality of included studies. We attempted to assess the reporting quality of 14 out of 17 included studies which conducted qualitative analysis on collected data, using an established checklist for reporting qualitative research — the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research, COREQ [ 49 ]. However, many items on the COREQ checklist were neither appropriate nor relevant to the reporting of story completion studies; for example, interview guide, repeat interviews, field notes, participant checking, and so forth. We are mindful of salient scholarly critique regarding COREQ’s trustworthiness and reliability in reflecting the quality of reporting [ 50 ]. Therefore, we could not justifiably adapt COREQ for the purposes of this study.

Strengths of this review include having an extensive search strategy and broad inclusion criteria, allowing us to retrieve as many relevant studies as possible. University librarians were consulted for refinement of search strategy and included studies were not limited to a particular search period or geographical area. We piloted our data extraction form to evaluate its ability to capture relevant study information. Issues were flagged and the form was revised accordingly prior to actual extraction by two researchers.

Implications for research and practice

Currently, there are no universally agreed best practice nor reporting standard for the story completion method in health services research. Given the various ways in which the story completion method has been used in this scoping review, we offer several suggestions for research and practice for further discussions by the scholarly community.

First, piloting is crucial and recommended by key proponents of the story completion method [ 8 , 11 ]. Story completion is a fixed task unlike other qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews or focus groups where it is possible to iteratively modify the questions as participants co-shape the research-in-progress. Piloting is a smart way to ensure that both the instructions and story stem(s) provided to participants are clear, to prevent misinterpretations.

Second, consider using other quantitative or qualitative research methods to triangulate or corroborate the data from the story completion method if thorough investigation of the research question(s) requires more than one method. While a methodological strength of the story completion method is that it uncovers participants’ patterns and ways of sense-making beyond their lived experiences [ 9 , 14 , 15 , 27 , 35 , 42 ], this also means that there may be limited inferences that can be drawn from the findings since responses may not reflect participants’ realities. Hence, pairing story completion with a story-mediated interview, for example, may lend further insights [ 12 ].

Third, as story completion studies are markedly different from traditional qualitative research methods, having an agreed set of reporting criteria for such studies will be useful for health services researchers. For example, a minimalist set of reporting criteria could comprise the 10-item JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research [ 51 ] plus a description of the study design, development of the story stems, number of participants/sample size, and how participants completed the task in terms of modality, the number of story stems per participant, and sequence of story stem presentation.

The story completion method is an exciting and innovative way of doing qualitative research, and has the potential to be used more widely. This scoping review generated a comprehensive summary of how the story completion method has been used in health-related research. Findings and suggestions for research and practice serve as useful resources for researchers interested in experimenting with and adopting the story completion method in their work.

Data availability

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/rk2e6/.

Stickley T, O’Caithain A, Homer C. The value of qualitative methods to public health research, policy and practice. Perspect Public Health. 2022;142(4):237–40.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Renjith V, Yesodharan R, Noronha JA, Ladd E, George A. Qualitative methods in Health Care Research. Int J Prev Med. 2021;12:20.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hamilton AB, Finley EP. Qualitative methods in implementation research: an introduction. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112516.

Noyes J. Never mind the qualitative feel the depth! The evolving role of qualitative research in Cochrane intervention reviews. J Res Nurs. 2010;15(6):525–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Yarker J, Lewis R, Sinclair A, Michlig G, Munir F. Meta-synthesis of qualitative research on the barriers and facilitators to implementing workplace mental health interventions. SSM - Mental Health. 2022;2:100148.

Rolfe DE, Ramsden VR, Banner D, Graham ID. Using qualitative Health Research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):49.

Sofaer S. Qualitative research methods. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(4):329–36.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Clarke V, Braun V, Frith H, Moller N. Editorial introduction to the Special Issue: using Story Completion methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2019;16(1):1–20.

Moller N, Tischner I. Young people’s perceptions of fat counsellors: how can THAT help me? Qualitative Res Psychol. 2019;16(1):34–53.

Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Frith H, Malson H, Moller N, et al. Qualitative story completion: possibilities and potential pitfalls. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2019;16(1):136–55.

Urry K, Hunter S, Feo R, Scholz B. Qualitative story completion: opportunities and considerations for Health Research. Qual Health Res. 2023;33(4):345–55.

Gravett K. Story Completion: Storying as a method of meaning-making and Discursive Discovery. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2019;18:1609406919893155.

Lenette C, Vaughan P, Boydell K. How can Story Completion be used in culturally safe ways? Int J Qualitative Methods. 2022;21:16094069221077764.

Vaughan P, Lenette C, Boydell K. ‘This bloody rona!’: using the digital story completion method and thematic analysis to explore the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in Australia. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e057393.

Lloyd CEM, Mengistu BS, Reid G. “His main problem was not being in a relationship with God”: perceptions of depression, help-seeking, and treatment in evangelical Christianity. Front Psychol. 2022;13:831534.

Andrews M. Narrative, imagination and extending visions of the possible. Sociétés. 2016;133(3):15–20.

Smith B. Some modest thoughts on Story Completion methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2019;16(1):156–9.

Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]. JBI; 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 14]. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .

Open Science Framework. There’s a better way to manage your research [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 18]. https://osf.io/ .

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Lohr KN, Steinwachs DM. Health Services Research: an evolving definition of the field. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(1):15–7.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Social determinants of health [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2024 [cited 2024 May 6]. https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1 .

Creswell JW. Mapping the Developing Landscape of Mixed Methods Research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2010. p. 51.

Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB. How to construct a mixed methods Research Design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017;69(Suppl 2):107–31.

Shah-Beckley I, Clarke V. Exploring therapists’ and psychology students’ constructions of sexual refusal in heterosexual relationships: a qualitative story completion study. Counselling Psychother Res. 2021;21(4):946–56.

Tischner I. Tomorrow is the start of the rest of their life-So who cares about health? Exploring constructions of weight-loss motivations and health using story completion. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2019;16(1):54–73.

Scholz B, Bocking J, Hedt P, Lu VN, Happell B. ‘Not in the room, but the doctors were’: an Australian story-completion study about consumer representation. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(4):752–61.

World Health Organization. Countries [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 16]. https://www.who.int/countries .

LIWC, Introducing. LIWC-22: Pennebaker Conglomerates; [cited 2023 Oct 16]. https://www.liwc.app/ .

Diniz E, Castro P, Bousfield A, Figueira Bernardes S. Classism and dehumanization in chronic pain: a qualitative study of nurses’ inferences about women of different socio-economic status. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(1):152–70.

Jones BA, Landes RD, Yi R, Bickel WK. Temporal horizon: modulation by smoking status and gender. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;104(Suppl1):S87–93.

Walsh E, Malson H. Discursive constructions of eating disorders: a story completion task. Feminism Psychol. 2010;20(4):529–37.

Lupton D. ‘The internet both reassures and terrifies’: exploring the more-than-human worlds of health information using the story completion method. Med Humanit. 2021;47(1):68–77.

Tichenor CC, Rundall TG. Attitudes of physical therapists toward cancer: a pilot study. Phys Ther. 1977;57(2):160–5.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Scott AG, Hunter SC, Johnson BJ. Exploring the social norms regarding parents’ food provision in Australia using story completion methodology. Appetite. 2022;178:106165.

Lloyd CEM, Panagopoulos MC. ‘Mad, bad, or possessed’? Perceptions of self-harm and mental illness in evangelical Christian communities. Pastoral Psychol. 2022;71:291–311.

Hayfield N, Campbell C. Students’ representations of menopause and perimenopause: out of control bodies and empathetic expert doctors. Sex Roles. 2022;87:365–78.

Wallace M. Future time perspective in schizophrenia. J Abnorm Psychol. 1956;52(2):240–5.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nimbley E, Caes L, Jones A, Fisher E, Noel M, Jordan A. A linguistic analysis of future narratives in adolescents with complex regional pain syndrome and their pain-free peers. Eur J Pain. 2021;25(3):693–703.

Jones A, Caes L, Eccleston C, Noel M, Rugg T, Jordan A. Loss-adjusting: Young people’s constructions of a future living with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Clin J Pain. 2020;36(12):932–9.

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London, England: SAGE Publications; 2021.

Google Scholar  

Olstein J, Finn MD. Daring to speak its name: perceptions of suicidal ideation among Australian gay men. J Community Psychol. 2021;50(3):1756–67.

Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, Young T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):148.

Bispo Júnior JP. Social desirability bias in qualitative health research. Rev Saude Publica. 2022;56:101.

Aviv-Reuven S, Rosenfeld A. Publication patterns’ changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2021;126(8):6761–84.

Nevedal AL, Reardon CM, Opra Widerquist MA, Jackson GL, Cutrona SL, White BS, et al. Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):67.

Lewinski AA, Crowley MJ, Miller C, Bosworth HB, Jackson GL, Steinhauser K, et al. Applied rapid qualitative analysis to develop a contextually appropriate intervention and increase the likelihood of uptake. Med Care. 2021;59(Suppl 3):S242–51.

Proctor E, Ramsey AT, Saldana L, Maddox TM, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. FAST: a framework to assess speed of translation of health innovations to practice and policy. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2022;2(2):107–19.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Buus N, Perron A. The quality of quality criteria: replicating the development of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;102:103452.

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):179–87.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank university librarians from these institutions for consultations on the search strategy: Queensland University of Technology, Australia and Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom.

Authors received no additional funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Services & Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Candelyn Yu Pong & Elaine Lum

Centre for Population Health Research & Implementation, SingHealth Duke-NUS Academic Medical Centre, Singapore, Singapore

School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Nicola J. Roberts

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Author contributions described according to the CRediT taxonomy as follows. Conceptualized the study: EL. Drafted, revised, and finalized the study protocol including search strategy: CYP, EL, and NJR. Conducted the study: CYP and EL. Curated and analyzed the data: CYP and EL. Interpreted the data: EL, CYP, and NJR. Supervised the study: EL. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript including data visualizations: CYP and EL. Revised the manuscript following peer review: EL. Provided critical input to the first draft of the manuscript: NJR. Provided critical input to the revised manuscript: NJR and CYP. All authors approved the final manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Lum .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pong, C.Y., Roberts, N.J. & Lum, E. The “what, why, and how?” of story completion in health services research: a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 24 , 159 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02274-7

Download citation

Received : 12 December 2023

Accepted : 04 July 2024

Published : 23 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02274-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Story completion
• Health services research
• Study design
• Qualitative research

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A guide to the literature of qualitative research

1982, Journal of Broadcasting

Related Papers

umran kemikli

International Security

William Wohlforth

Martin J Packer

[http://www.cambridge.org/knowledge/discountpromotion?code=PACKER12] This book is a unique examination of qualitative research in the social sciences, raising and answering the question of why we do this kind of investigation. It explores the multiple roots of qualitative research – including phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical theory – in order to diagnose the current state of play and recommend an alternative. The diagnosis is that much qualitative research today continues to employ the mind-world dualism that is typical of traditional experimental investigation. The recommendation is that we focus on constitution: the relationship of mutual formation between a form of life and its members. Michel Foucault’s program for “a historical ontology of ourselves” provides the basis for a fresh approach to investigation. The basic tools of qualitative research – interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and analysis of discourse – are re-forged in order to articulate how our way of living makes us who we are, and so empower us to change this form of life. "By combining the range of theories from different disciplines, this book makes an excellent textbook for beginners in social and behavioral sciences. Furthermore, this informative book will be useful for all those interested in different theories and methods framing qualitative inquiry. Specifically, this work would be particularly helpful for students employing qualitative methodologies and working on grounding their studies. Although this book covers many theories and methodologies, extensive background knowledge of the theorists and concepts is not required as Packer does a great job explaining in detail those topics required to understand the content." The Qualitative Report

Anna Atoyan

Revista Investigación Cualitativa , Daniel F Johnson Mardones

A multiplicity of theoretical methodologies can be grouped together 'qualitative inquiry' and they are increasingly used in academic fields that investigate issues of personal and social life. Amongst them we find biographic investigation, narrative, cultural studies, discourse analysis and autoethnography. This list is not restricted. Among the many kinds of qualitative research we find a growing differentiation within each. None of them is monolithic. Within each, differences grow, based on different thematic fields, epistemological emphases, methodological options, ethical frames, as well as from their influence on each other. And these subfields claim their independence, a tendency that is repeated inside each sub-field. Many of them (if not all) claim a disciplinary or interdisciplinary identity as well that exceeds the methodological. Those who argue this, understand qualitative inquiry as a moment in the process of production of knowledge regarding a given phenomenon. For many of them, qualitative inquiry can even be what allows them to constitute the phenomenon in the best way possible. Others insist that a mixed approach is necessary in their research. This affects not only the social sciences. We find similar arguments in interdisciplinary spaces that are closer to the Humanities and the so-called applied disciplines. An intriguing case in particular is that of action-inquiry, whose emphasis on transformation and participation would seem to situate it inside qualitative research, though many participants think this is not so. Their position arises from reasons that are theoretic-methodological but also invokes arguments of strategy. Given what has already been said, I am convinced that Investigación Cualitativa must confess and practice an epistemological cosmopolitanism. Consider that qualitative inquiry, like any other academic field, is both an area within the cartography of knowledge and a socio-intellectual community. And of course we should recognize that qualitative research is not one but several socio-intellectual communities. At this point things are not only complex but also complicated. In effect, Investigación Cualitativa is born within one of those communities. I dare to say that it is born with the promise to promote the growth and diversification of the production of knowledge and contact amongst those who cultivate it-and cultivate themselves through it. This is the community that speaks and works in Spanish and Portuguese and meets year after year during the days of the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ICQI) under the name of ADISP, A Day in Spanish and Portuguese. This way, the internal distinction and external intersections of the socio-intellectual communities of qualitative inquiry rise in our case from the linguistic specificity as well as national differences. Needless to say, the provocation of writing and engaging in conversation in your own language when it is about qualitative inquiry transforms into an epistemological need, 1 PhD (c) in Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign. [email protected]

Journal of Medicne and the Person

Mariaelena Bartesaghi

Qurrotul Anfaa

Jota Samper

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the MIT Center for International Studies and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 1 Diane E. Davis is Professor of Urbanism and Development at Harvard and a Faculty Affiliate of

Iqramuddin Iqramuddin

Markus Janssen

In this contribution we introduce Part I of the special issue on qualitative content analysis (QCA). We start by describing the rationale on which this special issue is based and our considerations in dividing the topic into two separate parts. We then provide an overview of concerns in the current methodological discussion of QCA, identifying four core areas: 1. the conceptualization of QCA as a hybrid of quantitative and qualitative elements or as a genuinely qualitative method; 2. the relationship between the German and the international discourse on QCA; 3. the question of whether theoretical and / or epistemological foundations of QCA can be identified; and 4. the lack of transparency in documenting the application of QCA. Next, we outline the process of putting together this special issue and provide an overview of the structure and how the contributions relate to each other. In this current Part I, we focus on contributions in which authors deal with questions concerning the ...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Sumaya Usama

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being

Les Todres , Immy Holloway

Kassahun Melesse

Philip Savage

kenneth gergen

Glenda Shaw-Garlock

Teaching Sociology

Kabwe Kapwaya

Travis Marn

Journal of Family Theory & Review

Elizabeth Sharp

Katy Pearce

MKSES Publication

Vipul K U M A R Gautam

Perspectives on Politics

Michael Bernhard

Qualitative Inquiry

Marco Gemignani

Chehou OUSSOUMANOU

Seda Khadimally

Maria José Alonso Olea

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

Carrie Sanders

Antoinette Quarshie

Deborah Sitorus

Zaenal Muttaqin

Brandi Lawless , Yea-Wen Chen

Dr. Jason J . Campbell

Janice Morse

Qualitative Research: Practices and Challenges

Elizabeth M Pope

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Pertti Alasuutari

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2019
• Volume 42 , pages 139–160, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
• Ugo Corte 3  

618k Accesses

315 Citations

24 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Research

Unsettling definitions of qualitative research, what is “qualitative” in qualitative research why the answer does not matter but the question is important.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.

Google Scholar  

Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.

Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.

Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .

Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.

Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.

Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.

Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.

Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2007. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30 (3): 287–305.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.

Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.

James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.

Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.

Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.

Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .

Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.

Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.

Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.

McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.

Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf

Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).

Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.

Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.

Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.

Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.

Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.

Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.

Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.

Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.

Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.

Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Patrik Aspers

Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Download citation

Published : 27 February 2019

Issue Date : 01 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Epistemology
• Philosophy of science
• Phenomenology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can J Hosp Pharm
• v.68(3); May-Jun 2015

Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management

Introduction.

In an earlier paper, 1 we presented an introduction to using qualitative research methods in pharmacy practice. In this article, we review some principles of the collection, analysis, and management of qualitative data to help pharmacists interested in doing research in their practice to continue their learning in this area. Qualitative research can help researchers to access the thoughts and feelings of research participants, which can enable development of an understanding of the meaning that people ascribe to their experiences. Whereas quantitative research methods can be used to determine how many people undertake particular behaviours, qualitative methods can help researchers to understand how and why such behaviours take place. Within the context of pharmacy practice research, qualitative approaches have been used to examine a diverse array of topics, including the perceptions of key stakeholders regarding prescribing by pharmacists and the postgraduation employment experiences of young pharmacists (see “Further Reading” section at the end of this article).

In the previous paper, 1 we outlined 3 commonly used methodologies: ethnography 2 , grounded theory 3 , and phenomenology. 4 Briefly, ethnography involves researchers using direct observation to study participants in their “real life” environment, sometimes over extended periods. Grounded theory and its later modified versions (e.g., Strauss and Corbin 5 ) use face-to-face interviews and interactions such as focus groups to explore a particular research phenomenon and may help in clarifying a less-well-understood problem, situation, or context. Phenomenology shares some features with grounded theory (such as an exploration of participants’ behaviour) and uses similar techniques to collect data, but it focuses on understanding how human beings experience their world. It gives researchers the opportunity to put themselves in another person’s shoes and to understand the subjective experiences of participants. 6 Some researchers use qualitative methodologies but adopt a different standpoint, and an example of this appears in the work of Thurston and others, 7 discussed later in this paper.

Qualitative work requires reflection on the part of researchers, both before and during the research process, as a way of providing context and understanding for readers. When being reflexive, researchers should not try to simply ignore or avoid their own biases (as this would likely be impossible); instead, reflexivity requires researchers to reflect upon and clearly articulate their position and subjectivities (world view, perspectives, biases), so that readers can better understand the filters through which questions were asked, data were gathered and analyzed, and findings were reported. From this perspective, bias and subjectivity are not inherently negative but they are unavoidable; as a result, it is best that they be articulated up-front in a manner that is clear and coherent for readers.

THE PARTICIPANT’S VIEWPOINT

What qualitative study seeks to convey is why people have thoughts and feelings that might affect the way they behave. Such study may occur in any number of contexts, but here, we focus on pharmacy practice and the way people behave with regard to medicines use (e.g., to understand patients’ reasons for nonadherence with medication therapy or to explore physicians’ resistance to pharmacists’ clinical suggestions). As we suggested in our earlier article, 1 an important point about qualitative research is that there is no attempt to generalize the findings to a wider population. Qualitative research is used to gain insights into people’s feelings and thoughts, which may provide the basis for a future stand-alone qualitative study or may help researchers to map out survey instruments for use in a quantitative study. It is also possible to use different types of research in the same study, an approach known as “mixed methods” research, and further reading on this topic may be found at the end of this paper.

The role of the researcher in qualitative research is to attempt to access the thoughts and feelings of study participants. This is not an easy task, as it involves asking people to talk about things that may be very personal to them. Sometimes the experiences being explored are fresh in the participant’s mind, whereas on other occasions reliving past experiences may be difficult. However the data are being collected, a primary responsibility of the researcher is to safeguard participants and their data. Mechanisms for such safeguarding must be clearly articulated to participants and must be approved by a relevant research ethics review board before the research begins. Researchers and practitioners new to qualitative research should seek advice from an experienced qualitative researcher before embarking on their project.

DATA COLLECTION

Whatever philosophical standpoint the researcher is taking and whatever the data collection method (e.g., focus group, one-to-one interviews), the process will involve the generation of large amounts of data. In addition to the variety of study methodologies available, there are also different ways of making a record of what is said and done during an interview or focus group, such as taking handwritten notes or video-recording. If the researcher is audio- or video-recording data collection, then the recordings must be transcribed verbatim before data analysis can begin. As a rough guide, it can take an experienced researcher/transcriber 8 hours to transcribe one 45-minute audio-recorded interview, a process than will generate 20–30 pages of written dialogue.

Many researchers will also maintain a folder of “field notes” to complement audio-taped interviews. Field notes allow the researcher to maintain and comment upon impressions, environmental contexts, behaviours, and nonverbal cues that may not be adequately captured through the audio-recording; they are typically handwritten in a small notebook at the same time the interview takes place. Field notes can provide important context to the interpretation of audio-taped data and can help remind the researcher of situational factors that may be important during data analysis. Such notes need not be formal, but they should be maintained and secured in a similar manner to audio tapes and transcripts, as they contain sensitive information and are relevant to the research. For more information about collecting qualitative data, please see the “Further Reading” section at the end of this paper.

DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

If, as suggested earlier, doing qualitative research is about putting oneself in another person’s shoes and seeing the world from that person’s perspective, the most important part of data analysis and management is to be true to the participants. It is their voices that the researcher is trying to hear, so that they can be interpreted and reported on for others to read and learn from. To illustrate this point, consider the anonymized transcript excerpt presented in Appendix 1 , which is taken from a research interview conducted by one of the authors (J.S.). We refer to this excerpt throughout the remainder of this paper to illustrate how data can be managed, analyzed, and presented.

Interpretation of Data

Interpretation of the data will depend on the theoretical standpoint taken by researchers. For example, the title of the research report by Thurston and others, 7 “Discordant indigenous and provider frames explain challenges in improving access to arthritis care: a qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory,” indicates at least 2 theoretical standpoints. The first is the culture of the indigenous population of Canada and the place of this population in society, and the second is the social constructivist theory used in the constructivist grounded theory method. With regard to the first standpoint, it can be surmised that, to have decided to conduct the research, the researchers must have felt that there was anecdotal evidence of differences in access to arthritis care for patients from indigenous and non-indigenous backgrounds. With regard to the second standpoint, it can be surmised that the researchers used social constructivist theory because it assumes that behaviour is socially constructed; in other words, people do things because of the expectations of those in their personal world or in the wider society in which they live. (Please see the “Further Reading” section for resources providing more information about social constructivist theory and reflexivity.) Thus, these 2 standpoints (and there may have been others relevant to the research of Thurston and others 7 ) will have affected the way in which these researchers interpreted the experiences of the indigenous population participants and those providing their care. Another standpoint is feminist standpoint theory which, among other things, focuses on marginalized groups in society. Such theories are helpful to researchers, as they enable us to think about things from a different perspective. Being aware of the standpoints you are taking in your own research is one of the foundations of qualitative work. Without such awareness, it is easy to slip into interpreting other people’s narratives from your own viewpoint, rather than that of the participants.

To analyze the example in Appendix 1 , we will adopt a phenomenological approach because we want to understand how the participant experienced the illness and we want to try to see the experience from that person’s perspective. It is important for the researcher to reflect upon and articulate his or her starting point for such analysis; for example, in the example, the coder could reflect upon her own experience as a female of a majority ethnocultural group who has lived within middle class and upper middle class settings. This personal history therefore forms the filter through which the data will be examined. This filter does not diminish the quality or significance of the analysis, since every researcher has his or her own filters; however, by explicitly stating and acknowledging what these filters are, the researcher makes it easer for readers to contextualize the work.

Transcribing and Checking

For the purposes of this paper it is assumed that interviews or focus groups have been audio-recorded. As mentioned above, transcribing is an arduous process, even for the most experienced transcribers, but it must be done to convert the spoken word to the written word to facilitate analysis. For anyone new to conducting qualitative research, it is beneficial to transcribe at least one interview and one focus group. It is only by doing this that researchers realize how difficult the task is, and this realization affects their expectations when asking others to transcribe. If the research project has sufficient funding, then a professional transcriber can be hired to do the work. If this is the case, then it is a good idea to sit down with the transcriber, if possible, and talk through the research and what the participants were talking about. This background knowledge for the transcriber is especially important in research in which people are using jargon or medical terms (as in pharmacy practice). Involving your transcriber in this way makes the work both easier and more rewarding, as he or she will feel part of the team. Transcription editing software is also available, but it is expensive. For example, ELAN (more formally known as EUDICO Linguistic Annotator, developed at the Technical University of Berlin) 8 is a tool that can help keep data organized by linking media and data files (particularly valuable if, for example, video-taping of interviews is complemented by transcriptions). It can also be helpful in searching complex data sets. Products such as ELAN do not actually automatically transcribe interviews or complete analyses, and they do require some time and effort to learn; nonetheless, for some research applications, it may be a valuable to consider such software tools.

All audio recordings should be transcribed verbatim, regardless of how intelligible the transcript may be when it is read back. Lines of text should be numbered. Once the transcription is complete, the researcher should read it while listening to the recording and do the following: correct any spelling or other errors; anonymize the transcript so that the participant cannot be identified from anything that is said (e.g., names, places, significant events); insert notations for pauses, laughter, looks of discomfort; insert any punctuation, such as commas and full stops (periods) (see Appendix 1 for examples of inserted punctuation), and include any other contextual information that might have affected the participant (e.g., temperature or comfort of the room).

Dealing with the transcription of a focus group is slightly more difficult, as multiple voices are involved. One way of transcribing such data is to “tag” each voice (e.g., Voice A, Voice B). In addition, the focus group will usually have 2 facilitators, whose respective roles will help in making sense of the data. While one facilitator guides participants through the topic, the other can make notes about context and group dynamics. More information about group dynamics and focus groups can be found in resources listed in the “Further Reading” section.

Reading between the Lines

During the process outlined above, the researcher can begin to get a feel for the participant’s experience of the phenomenon in question and can start to think about things that could be pursued in subsequent interviews or focus groups (if appropriate). In this way, one participant’s narrative informs the next, and the researcher can continue to interview until nothing new is being heard or, as it says in the text books, “saturation is reached”. While continuing with the processes of coding and theming (described in the next 2 sections), it is important to consider not just what the person is saying but also what they are not saying. For example, is a lengthy pause an indication that the participant is finding the subject difficult, or is the person simply deciding what to say? The aim of the whole process from data collection to presentation is to tell the participants’ stories using exemplars from their own narratives, thus grounding the research findings in the participants’ lived experiences.

Smith 9 suggested a qualitative research method known as interpretative phenomenological analysis, which has 2 basic tenets: first, that it is rooted in phenomenology, attempting to understand the meaning that individuals ascribe to their lived experiences, and second, that the researcher must attempt to interpret this meaning in the context of the research. That the researcher has some knowledge and expertise in the subject of the research means that he or she can have considerable scope in interpreting the participant’s experiences. Larkin and others 10 discussed the importance of not just providing a description of what participants say. Rather, interpretative phenomenological analysis is about getting underneath what a person is saying to try to truly understand the world from his or her perspective.

Once all of the research interviews have been transcribed and checked, it is time to begin coding. Field notes compiled during an interview can be a useful complementary source of information to facilitate this process, as the gap in time between an interview, transcribing, and coding can result in memory bias regarding nonverbal or environmental context issues that may affect interpretation of data.

Coding refers to the identification of topics, issues, similarities, and differences that are revealed through the participants’ narratives and interpreted by the researcher. This process enables the researcher to begin to understand the world from each participant’s perspective. Coding can be done by hand on a hard copy of the transcript, by making notes in the margin or by highlighting and naming sections of text. More commonly, researchers use qualitative research software (e.g., NVivo, QSR International Pty Ltd; www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx ) to help manage their transcriptions. It is advised that researchers undertake a formal course in the use of such software or seek supervision from a researcher experienced in these tools.

Returning to Appendix 1 and reading from lines 8–11, a code for this section might be “diagnosis of mental health condition”, but this would just be a description of what the participant is talking about at that point. If we read a little more deeply, we can ask ourselves how the participant might have come to feel that the doctor assumed he or she was aware of the diagnosis or indeed that they had only just been told the diagnosis. There are a number of pauses in the narrative that might suggest the participant is finding it difficult to recall that experience. Later in the text, the participant says “nobody asked me any questions about my life” (line 19). This could be coded simply as “health care professionals’ consultation skills”, but that would not reflect how the participant must have felt never to be asked anything about his or her personal life, about the participant as a human being. At the end of this excerpt, the participant just trails off, recalling that no-one showed any interest, which makes for very moving reading. For practitioners in pharmacy, it might also be pertinent to explore the participant’s experience of akathisia and why this was left untreated for 20 years.

One of the questions that arises about qualitative research relates to the reliability of the interpretation and representation of the participants’ narratives. There are no statistical tests that can be used to check reliability and validity as there are in quantitative research. However, work by Lincoln and Guba 11 suggests that there are other ways to “establish confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings” (p. 218). They call this confidence “trustworthiness” and suggest that there are 4 criteria of trustworthiness: credibility (confidence in the “truth” of the findings), transferability (showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts), dependability (showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated), and confirmability (the extent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest).

One way of establishing the “credibility” of the coding is to ask another researcher to code the same transcript and then to discuss any similarities and differences in the 2 resulting sets of codes. This simple act can result in revisions to the codes and can help to clarify and confirm the research findings.

Theming refers to the drawing together of codes from one or more transcripts to present the findings of qualitative research in a coherent and meaningful way. For example, there may be examples across participants’ narratives of the way in which they were treated in hospital, such as “not being listened to” or “lack of interest in personal experiences” (see Appendix 1 ). These may be drawn together as a theme running through the narratives that could be named “the patient’s experience of hospital care”. The importance of going through this process is that at its conclusion, it will be possible to present the data from the interviews using quotations from the individual transcripts to illustrate the source of the researchers’ interpretations. Thus, when the findings are organized for presentation, each theme can become the heading of a section in the report or presentation. Underneath each theme will be the codes, examples from the transcripts, and the researcher’s own interpretation of what the themes mean. Implications for real life (e.g., the treatment of people with chronic mental health problems) should also be given.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In this final section of this paper, we describe some ways of drawing together or “synthesizing” research findings to represent, as faithfully as possible, the meaning that participants ascribe to their life experiences. This synthesis is the aim of the final stage of qualitative research. For most readers, the synthesis of data presented by the researcher is of crucial significance—this is usually where “the story” of the participants can be distilled, summarized, and told in a manner that is both respectful to those participants and meaningful to readers. There are a number of ways in which researchers can synthesize and present their findings, but any conclusions drawn by the researchers must be supported by direct quotations from the participants. In this way, it is made clear to the reader that the themes under discussion have emerged from the participants’ interviews and not the mind of the researcher. The work of Latif and others 12 gives an example of how qualitative research findings might be presented.

Planning and Writing the Report

As has been suggested above, if researchers code and theme their material appropriately, they will naturally find the headings for sections of their report. Qualitative researchers tend to report “findings” rather than “results”, as the latter term typically implies that the data have come from a quantitative source. The final presentation of the research will usually be in the form of a report or a paper and so should follow accepted academic guidelines. In particular, the article should begin with an introduction, including a literature review and rationale for the research. There should be a section on the chosen methodology and a brief discussion about why qualitative methodology was most appropriate for the study question and why one particular methodology (e.g., interpretative phenomenological analysis rather than grounded theory) was selected to guide the research. The method itself should then be described, including ethics approval, choice of participants, mode of recruitment, and method of data collection (e.g., semistructured interviews or focus groups), followed by the research findings, which will be the main body of the report or paper. The findings should be written as if a story is being told; as such, it is not necessary to have a lengthy discussion section at the end. This is because much of the discussion will take place around the participants’ quotes, such that all that is needed to close the report or paper is a summary, limitations of the research, and the implications that the research has for practice. As stated earlier, it is not the intention of qualitative research to allow the findings to be generalized, and therefore this is not, in itself, a limitation.

Planning out the way that findings are to be presented is helpful. It is useful to insert the headings of the sections (the themes) and then make a note of the codes that exemplify the thoughts and feelings of your participants. It is generally advisable to put in the quotations that you want to use for each theme, using each quotation only once. After all this is done, the telling of the story can begin as you give your voice to the experiences of the participants, writing around their quotations. Do not be afraid to draw assumptions from the participants’ narratives, as this is necessary to give an in-depth account of the phenomena in question. Discuss these assumptions, drawing on your participants’ words to support you as you move from one code to another and from one theme to the next. Finally, as appropriate, it is possible to include examples from literature or policy documents that add support for your findings. As an exercise, you may wish to code and theme the sample excerpt in Appendix 1 and tell the participant’s story in your own way. Further reading about “doing” qualitative research can be found at the end of this paper.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research can help researchers to access the thoughts and feelings of research participants, which can enable development of an understanding of the meaning that people ascribe to their experiences. It can be used in pharmacy practice research to explore how patients feel about their health and their treatment. Qualitative research has been used by pharmacists to explore a variety of questions and problems (see the “Further Reading” section for examples). An understanding of these issues can help pharmacists and other health care professionals to tailor health care to match the individual needs of patients and to develop a concordant relationship. Doing qualitative research is not easy and may require a complete rethink of how research is conducted, particularly for researchers who are more familiar with quantitative approaches. There are many ways of conducting qualitative research, and this paper has covered some of the practical issues regarding data collection, analysis, and management. Further reading around the subject will be essential to truly understand this method of accessing peoples’ thoughts and feelings to enable researchers to tell participants’ stories.

Appendix 1. Excerpt from a sample transcript

The participant (age late 50s) had suffered from a chronic mental health illness for 30 years. The participant had become a “revolving door patient,” someone who is frequently in and out of hospital. As the participant talked about past experiences, the researcher asked:

• What was treatment like 30 years ago?
• Umm—well it was pretty much they could do what they wanted with you because I was put into the er, the er kind of system er, I was just on
• endless section threes.
• Really…
• But what I didn’t realize until later was that if you haven’t actually posed a threat to someone or yourself they can’t really do that but I didn’t know
• that. So wh-when I first went into hospital they put me on the forensic ward ’cause they said, “We don’t think you’ll stay here we think you’ll just
• run-run away.” So they put me then onto the acute admissions ward and – er – I can remember one of the first things I recall when I got onto that
• ward was sitting down with a er a Dr XXX. He had a book this thick [gestures] and on each page it was like three questions and he went through
• all these questions and I answered all these questions. So we’re there for I don’t maybe two hours doing all that and he asked me he said “well
• when did somebody tell you then that you have schizophrenia” I said “well nobody’s told me that” so he seemed very surprised but nobody had
• actually [pause] whe-when I first went up there under police escort erm the senior kind of consultants people I’d been to where I was staying and
• ermm so er [pause] I . . . the, I can remember the very first night that I was there and given this injection in this muscle here [gestures] and just
• having dreadful side effects the next day I woke up [pause]
• . . . and I suffered that akathesia I swear to you, every minute of every day for about 20 years.
• Oh how awful.
• And that side of it just makes life impossible so the care on the wards [pause] umm I don’t know it’s kind of, it’s kind of hard to put into words
• [pause]. Because I’m not saying they were sort of like not friendly or interested but then nobody ever seemed to want to talk about your life [pause]
• nobody asked me any questions about my life. The only questions that came into was they asked me if I’d be a volunteer for these student exams
• and things and I said “yeah” so all the questions were like “oh what jobs have you done,” er about your relationships and things and er but
• nobody actually sat down and had a talk and showed some interest in you as a person you were just there basically [pause] um labelled and you
• know there was there was [pause] but umm [pause] yeah . . .

This article is the 10th in the CJHP Research Primer Series, an initiative of the CJHP Editorial Board and the CSHP Research Committee. The planned 2-year series is intended to appeal to relatively inexperienced researchers, with the goal of building research capacity among practising pharmacists. The articles, presenting simple but rigorous guidance to encourage and support novice researchers, are being solicited from authors with appropriate expertise.

Previous articles in this series:

Bond CM. The research jigsaw: how to get started. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):28–30.

Tully MP. Research: articulating questions, generating hypotheses, and choosing study designs. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):31–4.

Loewen P. Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(2):133–7.

Tsuyuki RT. Designing pharmacy practice research trials. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(3):226–9.

Bresee LC. An introduction to developing surveys for pharmacy practice research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(4):286–91.

Gamble JM. An introduction to the fundamentals of cohort and case–control studies. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(5):366–72.

Austin Z, Sutton J. Qualitative research: getting started. C an J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(6):436–40.

Houle S. An introduction to the fundamentals of randomized controlled trials in pharmacy research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014; 68(1):28–32.

Charrois TL. Systematic reviews: What do you need to know to get started? Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;68(2):144–8.

Competing interests: None declared.

Further Reading

Examples of qualitative research in pharmacy practice.

• Farrell B, Pottie K, Woodend K, Yao V, Dolovich L, Kennie N, et al. Shifts in expectations: evaluating physicians’ perceptions as pharmacists integrated into family practice. J Interprof Care. 2010; 24 (1):80–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory P, Austin Z. Postgraduation employment experiences of new pharmacists in Ontario in 2012–2013. Can Pharm J. 2014; 147 (5):290–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks PZ, Jennnings B, Farrell B, Kennie-Kaulbach N, Jorgenson D, Pearson-Sharpe J, et al. “I gained a skill and a change in attitude”: a case study describing how an online continuing professional education course for pharmacists supported achievement of its transfer to practice outcomes. Can J Univ Contin Educ. 2014; 40 (2):1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nair KM, Dolovich L, Brazil K, Raina P. It’s all about relationships: a qualitative study of health researchers’ perspectives on interdisciplinary research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8 :110. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pojskic N, MacKeigan L, Boon H, Austin Z. Initial perceptions of key stakeholders in Ontario regarding independent prescriptive authority for pharmacists. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014; 10 (2):341–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Qualitative Research in General

• Breakwell GM, Hammond S, Fife-Schaw C. Research methods in psychology. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Given LM. 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles B, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig C. Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham (UK): Open University Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]

Group Dynamics in Focus Groups

• Farnsworth J, Boon B. Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qual Res. 2010; 10 (5):605–24. [ Google Scholar ]

Social Constructivism

• Social constructivism. Berkeley (CA): University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley Graduate Division, Graduate Student Instruction Teaching & Resource Center; [cited 2015 June 4]. Available from: http://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/learning-theory-research/social-constructivism/ [ Google Scholar ]

Mixed Methods

• Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]

Collecting Qualitative Data

• Arksey H, Knight P. Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource with examples. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchel ML. Collecting qualitative data: a field manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]

Constructivist Grounded Theory

• Charmaz K. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2000. pp. 509–35. [ Google Scholar ]

• Open access
• Published: 22 July 2024

Characteristics and quality of reporting qualitative nursing research related to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic search and critical review

• Ian-In Vong 1 ,
• Monique Rothan-Tondeur 1 , 2 &
• Rita Georges Nohra 1  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  498 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

153 Accesses

Metrics details

The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease of 2019) pandemic caused major disruption to nursing research, especially qualitative research. Researchers had to overcome numerous challenges that potentially impacted the quality of the studies carried out.

The aim of this study is to assess the characteristics and quality of reporting qualitative nursing articles on the COVID-19 pandemic.

A systematic search and critical review using content analysis was conducted on published nurse-led articles using a qualitative approach related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A combination of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklists and additional items identified from the literature were used to assess the characteristics and overall quality of reporting of qualitative research.

Out of 63,494 articles screened, 444 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published in high-impact, Quartile 1 journals, with the majority originating from the USA. Common themes included workforce experiences and the impact of pandemic restrictions. Methodological quality varied, with a notable underuse of standardized reporting checklists. Despite pandemic-induced challenges in data collection, interviews remained the predominant method. However, the adoption of remote research methods and analysis software was limited.

The findings underscore the resilience and adaptability of nursing researchers during the pandemic. High-quality publications in top-tier journals indicate rigorous academic standards. However, the low utilization of reporting checklists suggests a need for greater emphasis on methodological transparency and adherence to established quality guidelines. This review highlights the importance of enhancing qualitative research practices to improve the rigor and reliability of studies, particularly in crisis contexts.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has threatened the health and well-being of global citizens which has led to a significant change in the attitude, lifestyle, and behavior of people from diverse professions [ 1 ]. Nurses have been and remain central to the pandemic––nurses are central to preventative, curative and palliative activities associated with COVID-19, and have taken these roles on in addition to their usual roles [ 2 ]. Nurses reported low job satisfaction, high levels of burnout, stress, and anxiety [ 3 ]. Researchers have experienced a decline in research motivation [ 4 ]. Scientific productivity, particularly among female academics, has suffered due to increased childcare responsibilities and psychological distress [ 5 ]. And parent researchers struggled to balance work and family responsibilities during the pandemic [ 6 ].

On the other hand, the travel restrictions and lockdown during the pandemic have undoubtedly affected all aspects of research, including qualitative research [ 7 , 8 ]. Qualitative nursing research is essential and important for understanding patient experiences, exploring complex healthcare phenomena, and guiding patient-centered care [ 9 ]. It provides insights into the subjective experiences, perceptions, and emotions of patients, families, and providers [ 10 ], bringing a holistic perspective to understanding the phenomena under study [ 11 ]. With qualitative methodologies, insight can be gained regarding the social responses to this pandemic, they are also the best methods to help explain, address, and plan for emergencies and pandemics, such as COVID-19 [ 7 , 12 , 13 ]. Restrictions during the pandemics made traditional data collection methods challenging [ 1 , 14 ]. Nurse researchers had to adapt to perform data collection in a virtual environment, shifting from face-to-face interviews to telephone or online meetings [ 1 ]; research participants were unwilling to show their faces at virtual meetings, and face-to-face interviews were only allowed with masks on [ 7 , 8 ]. These changes affected the quality and richness of data collection, missing important non-verbal elements such as attitude, gesture, and context [ 15 , 16 ].

Given the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nursing qualitative research activities, and deleterious effects on nurses, like emotional exhaustion [ 17 ], psychological distress [ 18 ], and burnout [ 3 , 19 ], but nurse researchers have also been very responsive to the pandemic, the Journal of Advanced Nursing has received hundreds of manuscripts focused on the pandemic, and more than 200 papers published on the COVID-19 pandemic in 2 years [ 2 ]. We doubted the quality of the publication. Scholarly journals are the most important media source for the dissemination of such research findings and information related to connecting this new evidence to practice [ 20 ] and nursing publication plays an essential role in improving nurses’ knowledge of new information and interesting this knowledge into nursing practice [ 21 ]. Together these phenomena might run the risk of producing poor quality qualitative research. Current literature provides two bibliometric analyses of COVID-19 research published in nursing journal, these provide the readers with only objective information on nursing publication related to COVID-19. The existing literature lacks comprehensive reviews that specifically focus on the characteristics and reporting quality of qualitative nursing research related to COVID-19. This study addresses this gap by providing a thorough analysis, which is crucial for guiding future research efforts and improving the overall quality of qualitative studies in nursing. By emphasizing the importance of maintaining high research quality, this study aims to contribute valuable insights that can inform future research, policymaking, and practice in nursing.

Providing a critical review of COVID-19 qualitative nursing research is an unmet need. To achieve this goal, we designed a systematic literature search including all available COVID-19 nursing qualitative articles using a large task force dedicated to the analysis of high-volume articles. We aimed at investigating the characteristics and the methodological quality assessment of reporting COVID-19 qualitative nursing publications.

We conducted a systematic literature search and a critical review using content analysis. This type of content analysis was to enable the production of measurements, occurrences, or comparisons through statistical or quantitative methods [ 22 ]. This review builds upon the methods utilized in two similar reviews [ 23 , 24 ], which assessed the characteristics of articles and described the methodological quality of the articles by presenting the percentage of compliance with each item of a standardized methodological reporting quality checklist. Our study adopted a pre-established checklist which was designed based on the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [ 25 ] and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) [ 26 ], along with other items identified in the literature to examine the quality of reporting in qualitative research.

This study is an ancillary study that extracted articles related to COVID-19 from the database of a large study aims to assess the characteristics and reporting quality using a qualitative approach in the field of nursing from 2012 to January 2023.

Search strategy

Several databases were consulted to ensure the inclusion of relevant studies in the field of nursing. The main databases are academic and medical databases, such as PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cairn, Embase, Web of science and Scopus. Document search strategies are developed using the MeSH thesaurus (Medical subject headings) and related keywords. The MEDLINE strategy has been developed and tested by the research team: “nursing research“[MH] OR “nursing research“[TW] OR (“nursing research“[Title/Abstract:~2]) OR nurs*[affiliation]) AND (“qualitative research“[MH] OR “qualitative research“[TIAB] OR “qualitative study“[TIAB] OR “qualitative studies“[TIAB] OR “grounded theory“[TIAB] OR “phenomenology“[TIAB] OR “ethnography“[TIAB] OR (“qualitative study“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “qualitative studies“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “qualitative research“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “qualitative theory“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “qualitative theories“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “grounded study“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “grounded studies“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “grounded theory“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “grounded theories“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “grounded research“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “ethnological study“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “ethnological studies“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “ethnological theory“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “ethnological theories“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “ethnological research“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “phenomenological study“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “phenomenological studies“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “phenomenological theory“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “phenomenological theories“[Title/Abstract:~2] OR “phenomenological research“[Title/Abstract:~2]. Then, a hand search was conducted to identified articles related to COVID-19. The literature search was performed between June 2023 to August 2023.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Any qualitative nursing research related to COVID-19 was included. The first authors must be nurses. The language was limited to English and French. Both peer-reviewed and pre-prints articles were included.

Articles related to non-human samples and full-text unavailable were excluded.

Article screening

We followed the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for article selection. All articles yielded through an initial search from the databases were exported into Rayyan Software, a web-based tool designed to conduct and coordinate systematic literature reviews. Hand search was performed to identify articles related to COVID-19, and duplicates were removed. Next, affiliations were examined to determine if the first author was a nurse, and then titles and abstracts were reviewed to determine if the publication met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two researchers finished the screening independently. Any discrepant result was discussed by the two reviewers and resolved by consensus, or where necessary, a third researcher was involved. Finally, the articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for full-text reading.

Data extraction and data analysis

We used the pre-established checklist combining items from the SRQR and COREQ checklists and adding other items identified in the literature to answer the objective of this study. The checklist included 33 items seen in Tables  1 and 9 items regarding characteristics of the articles, and 24 items regarding methodological quality assessment. The checklist was pilot-tested and revised. Revisions were made after discussion among the researchers and included clarification of checklist items and the response of researchers to each item. For items of the characteristics of the articles, data were extracted to Excel (Excel 2020, Microsoft Excel, Redmond, WA, USA) for categorization. For items of methodological quality assessment, ATLAS.ti software (version 23.2.1) was used. All identified articles were imported into the software for content analysis with the use of a coding function, codes were created according to the items on the data extraction checklist, researcher read the content of the full-text articles one by one, then identified and coded the phrases according to the codes. For example, the code “field note” was created, and the researcher identified and coded the content if it is mentioned in the article. The frequency of each code was calculated to identify the methodological quality of the included articles.

Ethical considerations

This study is a review based on published articles; ethical approval was not required.

A total of 63,494 articles were registered in Rayyan software. Of these, 918 articles (1.44%) were related to COVID-19. After the exclusion of 56 articles due to duplication, the titles, and abstracts of all the articles were examined and 393 articles were excluded due to affiliations in which the first author was not a nurse. The remaining studies were reviewed in full-text. There were 20 articles excluded due to articles with a non-qualitative approach, 4 articles written in a foreign language were excluded, and 1 article was excluded because of full-texted unavailable. A total of 444 full-text articles related to COVID-19 were analyzed. The flowchart is presented in Fig.  1 .

Flowchart of articles screening

Characteristics of the COVID-19 qualitative nursing research

The 444 included articles were published in 196 different journals, one of which was published on MedRxiv, an online pre-print platform for non-peer-reviewed research, with the most articles being published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ( n  = 28, 14.3%).

Table  2 shows the most productive journals in terms of COVID-19 nursing qualitative publications. With regard to the quartile of the journals, the studies were published most frequently in Q1 journals ( n  = 260, 58.6%), followed by Q2 ( n  = 118, 26.6%), Q3 ( n  = 49, 11.0%), Q4 ( n  = 12, 2.7%). The impact factors for each journal are grouped into 6 categories: Of the 444 articles, impact factor below 1 ( n  = 54, 12.2%), impact factor between 1 and 1.999 ( n  = 72, 16.2%). In addition, impact factor between 2 and 2.999 ( n  = 107, 24.1%), impact factor between 3 and 3.999 ( n  = 92, 20.7%), impact factor between 4 and 4.999 ( n  = 87, 19.6%), and impact factor of 5 or higher ( n  = 29, 6.5%). And 3 articles published in journals with an impact factor which is not applicable.

We then assessed the distribution of countries among all the included publications. The top 10 publishing countries were the United States ( n  = 64, 14.4%), Iran ( n  = 57, 12.8%), China ( n  = 35, 7.9%), Turkey ( n  = 33, 7.4%), Spain ( n  = 32, 7.2%), Canada ( n  = 22, 5.0%), Indonesia ( n  = 19, 4.3%), Italy ( n  = 16, 3.6%) and the United Kingdom ( n  = 16, 3.6%) respectively, and South Korea ( n  = 14, 3.2%), see Fig.  2 . Regarding the year of publication, 27 articles (6.1%) were published in 2020, 170 articles (38.3%) in 2021, and 240 articles (54.1%) in 2022.

Distribution of countries of COVID-19 related qualitative nursing research published

The academic qualifications of the first authors were reported in 150 (33.8%) of the 444 articles. Of these, 113 (75.3%) first authors have a Ph.D degree ( n  = 113, 75.3%), Ph.D. candidates ( n  = 3, 2.0%), Ph.D. students ( n  = 7, 4.7%), Master degree ( n  = 23, 15.3%), Master students ( n  = 2, 1.3%), and Bachelor degree ( n  = 2, 1.3%). The affiliations of the first author were the universities ( n  = 395, 89.7%), the hospitals ( n  = 34, 7.7%), research centers ( n  = 12, 2.7%), and independent researchers ( n  = 1, 0.2%).

The focuses on COVID-19 qualitative nursing publications were categorized into 7 groups: workforce experience ( n  = 213, 48.0%), pandemic restrictions experience ( n  = 100, 22.5%), learning experience ( n  = 44, 9.9%), infected COVID-19 experience ( n  = 32, 7.2%), hospitalized experience ( n  = 30, 6.8%), psychological perception ( n  = 24, 5.4%), and guideline analysis ( n  = 1, 0.2%) during the COVID-19 pandemic, see Fig.  3 . The population was mainly clinical nurses ( n  = 197, 44.4%), nursing managers ( n  = 15, 3.4%), nurse educators ( n  = 5, 1.1%), nursing students ( n  = 50, 11.3%), other healthcare professionals ( n  = 18, 4.1%), COVID-19 patients ( n  = 31, 7.0%), other patients ( n  = 36, 8.1%), family members / caregivers ( n  = 24, 5.4%), and public ( n  = 68, 15.3%). Figures  4 and 5 shows the population distribution of the included articles.

Focuses of COVID-19 qualitative nursing research

Target population of COVID-19 qualitative nursing research

Distribution of clinical nurses

Methodological quality assessment of COVID-19 qualitative nursing research

Table  3 shows the prevalence of the items for reporting the methodological quality assessment of the included articles.

Methodological orientation

Of the 444 articles, the most adopted approach was the descriptive approach ( n  = 165, 37.1%), Fig.  6 shows the types of approach adopted. Additionally, 84 (18.9%) of the articles only mentioned “qualitative study” without specifying which approach was being adopted.

Types of approach adopted

Only one-third of the analyzed articles ( n  = 135, 30.4%) mentioned employing standardized reporting quality checklists. Among these, the COREQ checklist was the most utilized ( n  = 119, 26.8%), followed by the SRQR checklist ( n  = 16, 3.6%).

Data collection

Among the articles included, 382 (86%) used interviews/discussions as a data collection method, 20 articles (4.5%) used mixed methods for data collection, and 42 articles (9.5%) that used methods other than interviews/discussions, 2.7% used surveys with open questions, 2.03% carried out document analysis, 1.8% examined diaries, 1.6% analyzed comments on social media, 0.5% used the photovoice method, and finally 0.2% carried out an analysis of audio-newspapers, an analysis of video diaries, an analysis of media interviews, only 1 article used observation as data collection method.

With the articles using interview/discussion methods, 261 articles (64.9%) specified who conducted the interviews. And 78 of them (19.4%) provided detailed information on their professional profiles. Most articles ( n  = 327, 81.3%) mentioned the setting of data collection, with 65.4% ( n  = 214) conducted remotely, 28.4% ( n  = 93) conducted face-to-face, and 6.1% ( n  = 20) indicated that the interviews were conducted whether remotely or face-to-face depending on participants’ wishes. The remoted interviews were conducted by teleconference ( n  = 134, 57.3%), by telephone ( n  = 66, 28.2%), and by teleconference or telephone ( n  = 34, 14.5%), depending on the choice of participants. The software commonly used for teleconferencing was Zoom (44.5%), WhatsApp (11%), and Microsoft Teams (9.2%), while 35% did not mention which software was used, Fig.  7 shows the characteristics of data collection. Most articles ( n  = 340, 84.8%) specified the duration of the interviews, they were described in two ways: mean duration ( n  = 87, 25.6) or minimum and maximum duration ( n  = 253, 74.4%). Audio recording was most used (86.7%), followed by visual recording (13.0%), and a few (0.3%) mentioned whether audio/visual recording was used. Most articles ( n  = 351, 87.3%) provided interview guidelines, while only 16.9% ( n  = 68) pre-tested them.

Characteristics of data collection

Participants

Most articles ( n  = 434, 97.7%) mentioned the number of samples. Almost all the articles ( n  = 443, 99.9%) provided a detailed description of the samples. The most common sampling method was purposive sampling ( n  = 244, 66.8%), followed by convenience sampling ( n  = 34, 9.3%) and snowball sampling ( n  = 33, 9.0%). Some articles ( n  = 54, 14.8%) used mixed sampling methods.

Data analysis

The commonly used methods of analysis were content analysis ( n  = 149, 36.0%) and thematic analysis ( n  = 143, 34.4%) (Fig.  8 ). And some articles did not specify which method was used ( n  = 14, 3.4%). And the most common software chosen by the authors were NVivo (46.9%), MAXQDA (26.7%), and ATLAS.ti (16.0%).

Methods of data analysis

Presentation of results

All the articles (100%) presented their results in narrative form. The majority (90.3%) presented quotations in their results. Only 4.7% presented code recurrence. 18.7% used graphics to present their results, and 9.2% mentioned participants checking reports.

This study focused on the identification of the characteristics and reporting quality of qualitative nursing published research related to COVID-19 pandemic. We used a systematic search approach to identify qualitative nursing studies published related to the COVID-19 and then carried out a critical review with the use of content analysis of the identified articles, relying on a checklist created based on two standardized checklists (SRQR and COREQ). A total of 444 published studies were included and critically reviewed. The most productive country was the USA, which corresponds with a bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research published in a nursing journal. This can be explained by the fact that the USA is one of the most impacted countries by COVID-19 [ 27 ] and is one of the most prolific countries regarding nursing research [ 28 ]. A significant finding of our study is that the majority of articles were published in journals ranked within Quartile 1. This suggests that the research produced during this period not only addressed urgent topics but also met high academic standards.

In addition, the findings revealed that the most represented topics and target population were related to the workforce experience and clinical nurses respectively, this is consistent with an article that focused on the reflections on nursing research during the pandemic COVID-19 [ 2 ]. Interestingly, clinical nurses were the predominant target population of the articles reviewed, this is possibly attributable to the challenge of conducting research with patients and the public due to pandemic-related restrictions. This thematic focus is likely driven by the critical challenge and changes by clinical nurses during the pandemic, highlighting their significant role in the frontline response and the need to understand and support them.

It was surprising to see that the use of standardized checklists to guide research studies by the researchers was notably low, with only 30.4% mentioning the use of standardized checklists. This finding is particularly noteworthy in the context of qualitative nursing research during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period that demanded high-quality evidence to inform rapidly changing clinical practices. The low adoption rate of standardized checklists may reflect gaps in researchers’ awareness or accessibility to these tools, or perhaps a broader issue in the research culture that undervalues structured guidance in study design and reporting, as these checklists aim to improve the quality of reporting these study types and allow readers to better understand the design, conduct, analysis and findings of published studies [ 25 ].

Traditional qualitative research data collection methods like interviews and discussions were supposed to be most impacted by the pandemic. Surprisingly, 86% ( n  = 382) of the included articles used interviews or discussions as the data collection methods, and 28% of the researchers remained choosing the face-to-face interview method. We questioned how communication and facial expression were observed if facemasks were worn during the interview. Among the included studies that used the interview method in data collection, a significant proportion with 66% of these interviews were conducted remotely, either by telephone or online. These findings align with the literature reviewed, where nursing researchers in the USA reported an increase in the use of online platforms, as well as sending emails and phone calls for data collection, a trend which has seen a significant increase [ 8 ]. Researchers in Japan also reported having to adapt their research methods according to changes in the research environment, moving from in-person interviews to remote telephone interviews, collecting data while maintaining the social distancing, and online data collection [ 8 ]. A randomized research study comparing online interviews to in-person interviews person to assess health conditions was conducted in Australia. The results of this study showed that online interviews were preferred by a greater proportion of participants than in-person interviews, and then those assigned to the online group had a lower dropout rate. Additionally, the use of online interviews did not result in a loss of data quality [ 29 ]. Another study also indicated that online modalities for conducting qualitative research did not lead to substantially different thematic findings than in-person data collection [ 30 ]. These suggest that remote data collection methods would be a good choice for researchers, especially in situations where face-to-face interactions are challenging or not possible. The success of remote interviews in maintaining data quality, participant engagement, and lower dropout rates indicates their viability as a robust alternative to traditional methods. This shift not only ensures the continuity of research during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic but also offers a flexible and efficient approach for future qualitative studies. Embracing remote data collection can enhance the adaptability of research designs and potentially broaden the reach and inclusivity of participant recruitment, making it a valuable methodological option for qualitative nursing researchers.

The adoption of software tools in data analysis was surprisingly low, with only 37% of studies utilizing such resources. This finding suggests a potential area for further development in qualitative research practices, particularly to enhance efficiency and collaboration, especially in scenarios necessitating remote work and data sharing, especially during the pandemic when social contact was limited. In addition, there are other benefits of using qualitative data analysis software, including freedom from manual and administrative tasks, saving time, greater flexibility, and improved validity and reliability, and traceability of qualitative research [ 31 ].

In summary, this study carried out an in-depth analysis of data relating to the journals, articles, researchers, and methods used, identifying both strengths and areas requiring improvement. It highlighted the editorial quality of the publications and the methodological diversity observed in qualitative nursing studies linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that many articles demonstrated commendable transparency in explicitly detailing their research approach, data collection processes, sampling methods, and data analysis techniques. However, some areas need improvement. A key aspect is the insufficient representation of strategies to ensure study rigor, such as triangulation and validation by respondents. It is essential to include critical reflection on the role of researchers, potential biases and their influence during the analysis and selection of data for presentation. Additionally, discussions about data saturation and sequential analysis can significantly strengthen the quality of qualitative research reporting. It is important that authors not only explain the methods or techniques they used but also provide clear and detailed justifications for their choices.

The effective translation of nursing research into clinical practice is critical, especially as healthcare professionals heavily depend on the latest research to guide their practices and decisions. The variability in the quality and reliability of research articles can lead to the adoption of clinical practices that may not be supported by strong evidence, potentially affecting patient care and hindering the advancement of nursing practice [ 32 ]. Therefore, improving the transparency and rigor of research methodology reporting is essential to ensure that clinical practices are based on reliable and robust evidence. Our study highlights the importance of methodological clarity and the use of standardized checklists in guiding research, This is increasingly relevant as nursing research evolves to meet global health challenges. By ensuring the high quality of reporting qualitative research, we can better bridge the gap between research and clinical practice, leading to improved patient outcomes and more effective healthcare delivery.

Limitations

It is also essential to recognize that our research method may have some limitations. The diversity of qualitative research methods restricted our assessment to an overview of overall research reporting quality. Additionally, our inclusion criterion based on the first author as a nurse may have excluded studies conducted by nurse-led teams, but where academic conventions led to a different first author. The time limit of the database prevented us from including articles published after January 2023. Finally, we excluded articles not published in English or French, meaning that relevant articles in other languages may have been omitted.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we urge researchers to provide detailed information in their articles, thereby allowing audiences to carefully evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the methods and materials used to produce credible and useful results. We also recommend researchers to adopt validated critical appraisal checklists when conducting their studies. This study highlights the importance of continued reflection on qualitative research practices with a view to improving the reporting quality of future studies in the field of nursing, especially during the special period of a pandemic. Additionally, we plan to compare these results with ancillary studies to assess the characteristics and reporting quality of qualitative nursing research before the COVID-19 pandemic. In the future, we wish to open the way for future studies aimed at exploring the relationships between the different criteria identified and each qualitative approach.

Data availability

The data as well as detailed descriptions of the literature search and search outcome (including excluded articles) are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Abbreviations

Coronavirus disease of 2019

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Medical Subject Heading

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

United States of America

Sah LK, Singh DR, Sah RK. Conducting qualitative interviews using virtual communication tools amid COVID-19 pandemic: a learning opportunity for Future Research. J Nepal Med Association. 2020;58(232):1103–6. https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.5738 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Jackson D. (2022). Reflections on nursing research focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of advanced nursing. 2022;78(7);e84–e86; https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15281 .

Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, Bilali A, Kaitelidou D. Nurses’ burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(8):3286–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14839 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Takeuchi A, Yokota S, Tomotaki A, Fukahori H, Shimpuku Y, Yoshinaga N. Relationship between research activities and individual factors among Japanese nursing researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(8):e0271001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271001 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gabster BP, Van Daalen K, Dhatt R, Barry M. Challenges for the female academic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet (London England). 2020;395(10242):1968–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31412-4 .

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Abshire DA, McDonnell KK, Donevant SB, Corbett CF, Tavakoli AS, Felder TM, Pinto BM. Pivoting Nursing Research and Scholarship during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurs Res. 2021;70(3):165–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000493 .

Webber-Ritchey KJ, Simonovich SD, Spurlark RS. COVID-19: qualitative research with vulnerable populations. Nurs Sci Q. 2021;34(1):13–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318420965225 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Im EO, Sakashita R, Oh EG, Tsai HM, Chen CM, Lin CC, McCauley L. COVID-19 and nursing research across five countries/regions: commonalities and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2021;44(5):758–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22171 .

Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 11th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2020.

Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description ? Res Nurs Health. 2020;23(4):4. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23 .

Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. SAGE; 2018.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage; 1994.

Teti M, Schatz E, Liebenberg L. Methods in the Time of COVID-19: the vital role of qualitative inquiries. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2020;19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920920962 .

Abdul Rashid N, Lee K, Jamil NA. Conducting qualitative research in the new norms: are we ready? Nurs Health Sci. 2021;23(4):967–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12872 .

Prasad P. Crafting qualitative research: working in the postpositivist traditions : working in the postpositivist traditions. Routledge; 2015.

Presado MH, Baixinho CL, Oliveira ESF. Qualitative research in pandemic times. Investigação qualitativa em tempos de pandemia. Revista brasileira de enfermagem. 2021;74. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167.202174Suppl101 . Suppl 1:e74Suppl101.

Sarabia-Cobo C, Pérez V, De Lorena P, Hermosilla-Grijalbo C, Sáenz-Jalón M, Fernández-Rodríguez A, Alconero-Camarero AR. Experiences of geriatric nurses in nursing home settings across four countries in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(2):869–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14626 .

Hamama L, Marey-Sarwan I, Hamama-Raz Y, Nakad B, Asadi A. Psychological distress and perceived job stressors among hospital nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 outbreak. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(6):1642–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15041 .

Manzano-García G, Ayala-Calvo JC. The threat of COVID-19 and its influence on nursing staff burnout. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(2):832–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14642 .

Daly J, Jackson D. Contexts of nursing: an introduction. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.

Oh J, Kim JA. A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research published in nursing journals. Sci Editing. 2020;7(2):118–24. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.205 .

Ezzy D. Qualitative analysis: practice and innovation. Taylor & Francis; 2002.

Raynaud M, Zhang H, Louis K, Goutaudier V, Wang J, Dubourg Q, Wei Y, Demir Z, Debiais C, Aubert O, Bouatou Y, Lefaucheur C, Jabre P, Liu L, Wang C, Jouven X, Reese P, Empana JP, Loupy A. COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01190-w .

Younas A, Pedersen M, Tayaben JL. Review of Mixed-Methods Research in nursing. Nurs Res. 2019;68(6):464–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000372 .

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 .

Chahrour M, Assi S, Bejjani M, Nasrallah AA, Salhab H, Fares M, Khachfe HH. A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 Research Activity: a call for increased output. Cureus. 2020;12(3):e7357. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7357 .

Giménez-Espert MDC, Prado-Gascó V, Soto-Rubio A, Psychosocial, Risks. Work Engagement, and job satisfaction of nurses during COVID-19 pandemic. Front Public Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.566896 . 8;566896.

Peasgood T, Bourke M, Devlin N, Yang Y, Dalziel K. Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states. Soc Sci Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818 . 1982(323);115818.

Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 .

Cypress BS. Qualitative research: challenges and dilemmas. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2019;38(5):264–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000374 .

Gaglio B, Henton M, Barbeau A, Evans E, Hickam D, Newhouse R, Zickmund S. Methodological standards for qualitative and mixed methods patient centered outcomes research. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2020;371:m4435. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4435 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study received no specific funding from any funder.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nursing Sciences Research Chair, Laboratory Educations and Health Promotion (LEPS), University Sorbonne Paris Nord, UFR SMBH, Villetaneuse, EA, 3412, F-93430, France

Ian-In Vong, Monique Rothan-Tondeur & Rita Georges Nohra

Nursing Sciences Research Chair, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, F- 75005, France

Monique Rothan-Tondeur

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Ian-In Vong (I.I.V.) and Rita Georges Nohra (R.G.N.) independently conducted the article screening. Monique Rothan-Tondeur (M.R.T.) was consulted to resolve any discrepancies that arose during the screening process. I.I.V. and R.G.N. were primarily responsible for writing the main manuscript text. M.R.T. provided critical revisions and contributed intellectual content to the manuscript draft. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian-In Vong .

Ethics declarations

Ethic approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vong, II., Rothan-Tondeur, M. & Nohra, R.G. Characteristics and quality of reporting qualitative nursing research related to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic search and critical review. BMC Nurs 23 , 498 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02138-x

Download citation

Received : 12 April 2024

Accepted : 01 July 2024

Published : 22 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02138-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nursing research
• Qualitative research
• Methodological quality
• Critical review

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

What is qualitative research? Approaches, methods, and examples

Updated 23 Jul 2024

Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve over time. To achieve this, they employ various techniques and data collection methods in qualitative research allowing for a deeper exploration of human experiences. Participant observation, in-depth interviews, and other qualitative methods are commonly used to gather rich, detailed data to uncover key aspects of social behavior and relationships. What is qualitative research? This article will answer this question and guide you through the essentials of this methodology, including data collection techniques and analytical approaches.

Qualitative research definition and significance 

This inquiry method is helpful for learners interested in how to conduct research . It focuses on understanding human behavior, experiences, and social phenomena from the perspective of those involved. What does qualitative mean? It uses non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis, to understand people’s feelings, thoughts, and actions.

Where and when is it used?

Qualitative analysis is crucial in education, healthcare, social sciences, marketing, and business. It helps gain detailed insights into behaviors, experiences, and cultural phenomena. This approach is fundamental during exploratory phases, for understanding complex issues, and when context-specific insights are required. By focusing on depth over breadth, this approach is often employed when researchers seek to explore complex issues, understand the context of a phenomenon, or investigate things that are not easily quantifiable. It uncovers rich, nuanced data essential for developing theories and evaluating programs.

Why is qualitative research important in academia?

• It sheds light on complex phenomena and human experiences that quantitative methods may overlook.
• This method offers contextual understanding by studying subjects in their natural environments, which is crucial for grasping real-world complexities.
• It adapts flexibly to evolving study findings and allows for adjusting approaches as new ideas emerge.
• It collects rich, detailed data through interviews, observations, and analysis, offering a comprehensive view of the exploration topic.
• Qualitative research studies focus on new or less explored areas, helping to identify key variables and generate hypotheses for further study.
• This approach focuses on understanding individuals' perspectives, motivations, and emotions, essential in fields like sociology, psychology, and education.
• It supports theory development by providing empirical data that can create new theories and frameworks (you may read about “What is a conceptual framework?” and learn about other frameworks on the EduBirdie website).
• It improves practices in fields such as education and healthcare by offering insights into practitioners' and clients' needs and experiences.

The difference between qualitative and quantitative studies

Now that you know the answer to “Why is qualitative data important?”, let’s consider how this method differs from quantitative. Both studies represent two main types of research methods. The qualitative approach focuses on understanding behaviors, experiences, and perspectives using interviews, observations, and analyzing texts. These studies are based on reflexivity and aim to explore complexities and contexts, often generating new ideas or theories. Researchers analyze data to find patterns and themes, clarifying the details. However, findings demonstrated in the results section of a research paper may not apply broadly because they often use small, specific groups rather than large, random samples.

Quantitative studies, on the other hand, emphasize numerical data and statistical analysis to measure variables and relationships. They use methods such as surveys, experiments, or analyzing existing data to collect structured information. The goal is quantifying phenomena, testing hypotheses, and determining correlations or causes. Statistical methods are used to analyze data, identifying patterns and significance. Quantitative studies produce results that can be applied to larger populations, providing generalizable findings. However, they may lack the detailed context that qualitative methods offer.

The approaches to qualitative research 

To better understand the answer to “What is qualitative research?”, it’s necessary to consider various approaches within this methodology, each with its unique focus, implications, and functions. 

1. Phenomenology.

This theory aims to understand and describe the lived experiences of individuals regarding a particular phenomenon. 

Peculiarities:

• Focuses on personal experiences and perceptions.
• Seeks to uncover the essence of a phenomenon.
• Uses in-depth interviews and first-person accounts.

Example: Studying the experiences of people living with chronic illness to understand how it affects their daily lives.

2. Ethnography.

The approach involves immersive, long-term observation and participation in particular cultural or social contexts. 

• Provides a deep understanding of cultural practices and social interactions.
• Involves participant observation and fieldwork.
• Researchers often live within the community they are studying.

Example: Observing and participating in the daily life of a rural village to understand its social structure and cultural practices.

3. Grounded theory.

This approach seeks to develop a research paper problem statement and theories based on participant data.

• Focuses on creating new theories rather than analyzing existing ones.
• Uses a systematic process of data collection and analysis.
• Involves constant comparison and coding of data.

Example: Developing a theory on how people cope with job loss by interviewing and analyzing the experiences of unemployed individuals.

4. Case study.

Case studies involve an in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases.

• Provides detailed, holistic insights.
• Can involve individuals, groups, organizations, or events.
• Uses multiple data sources such as interviews, observations, and documents.

Example: One of the qualitative research examples is analyzing a specific company’s approach to innovation to understand its success factors.

5. Narrative research.

This methodology focuses on the stories and personal interpretations of individuals.

• Emphasizes the chronological sequence and context of events.
• Seeks to understand how people make sense of their experiences.
• Uses interviews, diaries, and autobiographies.

Example: Collecting and analyzing the life stories of veterans to understand their experiences during and after military service.

6. Action research.

This theoretical model involves a collaborative approach in which researchers and participants work together to solve a problem or improve a situation.

• Aims for practical outcomes and improvements.
• Involves cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
• Often used in educational, organizational, and community settings.

Example: Teachers collaborating with researchers to develop and test new teaching approaches to improve student engagement.

7. Discourse analysis.

It examines language use in texts, conversations, and other forms of communication.

• Focuses on how language shapes social reality and power dynamics.
• Analyzes speech, written texts, and media content.
• Explores the underlying meanings and implications of language.

Example: Analyzing political speeches to understand how leaders construct and convey their messages to the public.

Each of these examples of qualitative research offers unique tools and perspectives, enabling researchers to delve deeply into complex issues and gain a rich understanding of the issue they study.

Qualitative research methods

Various techniques exist to explore phenomena in depth and understand the complexities of human behavior, experiences, and social interactions. Some key methodologies that are commonly used in different sciences include several approaches.

Unstructured interviews;

These are informal and open-ended, designed to capture detailed narratives without imposing preconceived notions. Researchers typically start with a broad question and encourage interviewees to share their stories freely.

Semi-structured interviews;

They involve a core set of questions that allow researchers to explore topics deeply, adapting their inquiries based on responses received. This method of qualitative research design aims to gather rich, descriptive information, such as understanding what qualities make a good teacher.

Open questionnaire surveys;

They differ from closed-ended surveys in that they seek opinions and descriptions through open-ended questions. They allow for gathering diverse viewpoints from a larger group than one-on-one interviews would permit.

Observation;

It relies on researchers' skills to observe and interpret unbiased behaviors or activities. For instance, in education research, observation might track how students stay focused and manage distractions, recorded through field notes taken during or shortly after the observation.

Keeping logs and diaries;

This involves participants or researchers documenting daily activities or study contexts. Participants might record their social interactions or exercise routines, giving detailed data for later analysis. Researchers may also maintain diaries to document study contexts, helping to explain findings and other information sources.

All types of qualitative research have their strengths for gathering detailed information and exploring the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of exploration topics. Learners often use several methods (triangulation) to confirm their findings and deepen their understanding of complex subjects. If you need assistance choosing the most appropriate method to explore, feel free to contact our website, as we offer essays for sale and support with academic papers. 

Advantages and disadvantages of the qualitative research methodology

This approach has unique strengths, making it valuable in many sciences. One of the primary advantages of qualitative research is its ability to capture participants' voices and perspectives accurately. It is highly adaptable, allowing researchers to modify the technique as new questions and ideas arise. This flexibility allows researchers to investigate new ideas and trends without being limited to set methods from the start. While this approach has many strengths, it also has significant drawbacks. A research paper writer faces practical and theoretical limitations when analyzing and interpreting data. Let’s consider all the pros and cons of this methodology in detail.

Strengths of qualitative research:

• Adaptability: Data gathering and analysis can be adjusted as new patterns or ideas develop, ensuring the study remains relevant and responsive.
• Real-world contexts: Research often occurs in natural conditions, providing a more authentic understanding of phenomena and describing the particularities of human behavior and interactions.
• Rich insights: Detailed analysis of people’s feelings, perceptions, and experiences can be useful for designing, testing, or developing systems, products, and services.
• Innovation: Open-ended responses allow experts to discover new problems or opportunities, leading to innovative ideas and approaches.

Limitations of qualitative research:

• Unpredictability: Real-world conditions often introduce uncontrolled factors, making this approach less reliable and difficult to replicate.
• Bias: The qualitative method relies heavily on the researcher’s viewpoint, leading to subjective interpretations. This makes it challenging to replicate studies and achieve consistent results.
• Limited applicability: Small, specific samples give detailed information but limit the ability to generalize findings to a broader population. Conclusions about the qualitative research topics may be biased and not representative of the wider population.
• Time and effort: Analyzing qualitative data is time-consuming and labor-intensive. While software can help, much of the analysis must be done manually, requiring significant effort and expertise.

So, qualitative methodology offers significant benefits, such as adaptability, real-world context, rich insights, and fostering innovation. However, it also presents challenges like unpredictability, bias, limited applicability, or time- and labor-intensive. Understanding these pros and cons helps researchers make informed decisions about when and how to effectively utilize various types of qualitative research designs in their studies.

Final thoughts

Qualitative research provides a valuable understanding of complicated human experiences and social situations, making it a strong tool in various areas of study. Despite its challenges, such as unreliability, subjectivity, and limited generalizability, its strengths in flexibility, natural settings, and generating meaningful insights make it an essential approach. If you are one of the students looking to incorporate qualitative methodology into their academic papers, EduBirdie is here to help. Our experts can guide you through the process, ensuring your work is thorough, credible, and impactful.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Elizabeth Miller

Seasoned academic writer, nurturing students' writing skills. Expert in citation and plagiarism. Contributing to EduBirdie since 2019. Aspiring author and dedicated volunteer. You will never have to worry about plagiarism as I write essays 100% from scratch. Vast experience in English, History, Ethics, and more.

Related Blog Posts

Discover how to compose acknowledgements in research paper.

This post will help you learn about the use of acknowledgements in research paper and determine how they are composed and why they must be present ...

How to conduct research: best tips from experienced EduBirdie writers

Have you ever got your scholarly task and been unsure how to start research? Are you a first-year student beginning your project? Whatever the case...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most