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