International Debate

In Defense of Qualitative Research – A PhD Researcher’s Experience

February 10, 2023 1873

Even though qualitative research is more respected nowadays, it is still seen in some academic circles just as a starting point in research. We still live in a world where quantitative approaches are dominant and considered more robust for relying on numerical or measurable data. These methods allow us to measure variables and test hypotheses, whereas qualitative methods “only” allow us to explore beliefs, experiences, and understandings. The measurability gives them credibility, for numbers can be measured and evaluated, while interviews, focus groups or participant observation are subject to individual perceptions. As a PhD researcher, I have heard multiple times that conducting qualitative research is not as “good” as quantitative research, that it has too many “weaknesses” and it won’t be as easy to publish.

This post from Andrea Pérez Porres originally appeared on the SAGE perspectives blog, which highlights topical and interesting research published in SAGE books and journals

Although there is a bias against qualitative research, not every type of data can be handled using quantitative, and human behavior cannot always be reduced to numbers. There is complex data surrounding beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and understandings that needs the stories behind it to really understand the “why’s” and “how’s.” These questions are not always quantifiable, and they can have an impact on important decision-making processes. People’s beliefs and experiences shape the world. They influence changes in the institutions that shape development, and they influence societies’ structures.

Thus, qualitative research is extremely important. As a qualitative doctoral researcher myself, it is sometimes easy to fall into the belief that qualitative research is not as robust as quantitative research. I am researching how social movements understand innovation and technology beyond economic growth, and therefore I am focusing on the narratives and discourses that people have. Qualitative methods are frequently used in science, technology and innovation studies, as they allow the study of socio-technical imaginaries and explore the role of science, innovation, and technology in society. In addition to this, qualitative methods are very predominant as well in social movements studies. For me, the only way to conduct my study and answer my research questions is through qualitative research methods such as in-depth interviews and participant observation.

However, we are still bombarded by beliefs and biases that qualitative research is simpler, even easier sometimes. Nonetheless, something that people tend to forget is that qualitative thinking is also mixed within all the steps in the process of scientific work and research. Even when calculations are being processed by a machine, qualitative interpretations have had to be programmed into it beforehand. Qualitative research is everywhere, and it is as important and needed as quantitative research.

One of the challenges of qualitative research is that qualitative thinking will change from researcher to researcher, everyone does it differently. In addition to this, smaller sample sizes than in quantitative research can make generalization more difficult. However, it moves away from the cause-effect explanation towards a more complex understanding of reality. The main mistake here is to judge qualitative research by quantitative standards, qualitative research needs its own criteria. The criteria for assessing and evaluating qualitative research methods will differ from method to method, qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline and not one specific set of quality criteria is feasible, as explained in the article by Drishti Yadav on “Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review”.

No research method is perfect, and sometimes it might be better to use qualitative methods in conjunction with quantitative methods. But sometimes, it might not, and it should be just as valid.

Andrea Pérez Porres is a second-year PhD student in the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University. Her research focuses on social movements in the UK and how they are re-thinking innovation beyond economic growth for sustainability transitions. She is also one of the 2022/23 Hive Scholars.

View all posts by Andrea Pérez Porres

Related Articles

Emerson College Pollsters Explain How Pollsters Do What They Do
Communication
October 23, 2024

Emerson College Pollsters Explain How Pollsters Do What They Do

Read Now
Diving Into OSTP’s ‘Blueprint’ for Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy
Bookshelf
October 14, 2024

Diving Into OSTP’s ‘Blueprint’ for Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

Read Now
All Change! 2024 – A Year of Elections: Campaign for Social Science Annual Sage Lecture
Event
October 10, 2024

All Change! 2024 – A Year of Elections: Campaign for Social Science Annual Sage Lecture

Read Now
‘Settler Colonialism’ and the Promised Land
International Debate
September 27, 2024

‘Settler Colonialism’ and the Promised Land

Read Now
Webinar: Banned Books Week 2024

Webinar: Banned Books Week 2024

As book bans and academic censorship escalate across the United States, this free hour-long webinar gathers experts to discuss the impact these […]

Read Now
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

The creation of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has led to a heated debate on the balance between peer review and evaluative metrics in research assessment regimes. Luciana Balboa, Elizabeth Gadd, Eva Mendez, Janne Pölönen, Karen Stroobants, Erzsebet Toth Cithra and the CoARA Steering Board address these arguments and state CoARA’s commitment to finding ways in which peer review and bibliometrics can be used together responsibly.

Read Now
Revisiting the ‘Research Parasite’ Debate in the Age of AI

Revisiting the ‘Research Parasite’ Debate in the Age of AI

The large language models, or LLMs, that underlie generative AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, have an ethical challenge in how they parasitize freely available data.

Read Now
4 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sue Oliver PhD

I agree wholeheartedly that we qualitative researchers seem to be obliged to work harder to justify our findings as credible and trustworthy and contributing to the existing body of knowledge in our subject area. i have been involved in qualitative research since the early 1990s and have seen the development from having to ‘prove’ the efficacy of my data analysis, to the stage of arguing convincingly for validity through trustworthiness, dependability and various other qualities. However, our chosen research discipline enables us to perceive and understand human conditions to a depth that quantitative methods cannot. There is a place for… Read more »