INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Overview of Qualitative Research
Purely quantitative methods use populations, cases, and variables, and well-specified theories and hypotheses. Purely qualitative methods reject variables, testing, and strict divisions between observer and object of observation.
Qualitative and Quantitative research methods are on a spectrum; they can be fused together
In practice, most qualitative research is hybrid. It establishes “cases,” which can be internally and comparatively analyzed.
What is Qualitative Research?
Intensive analysis of clearly defined cases, limited to a small number or even a single case
Develops detailed and particular understanding of case in question, answers “how” questions
Emphasizes explaining a particular case over inferring patterns across cases (small N versus large N studies, descriptive versus causal inference)
What is a case? Anything the researcher wishes to examine, can be exclusively conceptual
Why do Qualitative Research?
Explaining Phenomena: how an observed outcome came to be
Corroborating Theories: whether a general theory explains a particular case
Criticizing Conventional Thought: shows nuance that broad theorizations ignore
Understanding Anomaly: reveals why a theory breaks down on paradoxical or neglected cases
How do you start Qualitative Research?
Extensive background knowledge of case and related elements at beginning of research process
Constantly relate case-analysis to theoretical concepts and existing cases—how do they compare?
Consider existing explanations of cases in order to select new cases
Look for cases that both supports and opposes existing explanations
How do you relate Qualitative Research to Primary Sources?
Process Tracing: find out how the text reflects a changing usage of major societal themes
Subjectivity Interpretation: explore the author’s intentions and perspective, identify ambiguous definitions (Schleiermacher)
Research Reflexivity: understand how intentions, experience and perspective influence your own interpretation of the text—what does this reveal about our own society?
Narrative/Genealogy Building: find out how the text contributes to a conceptual whole encompassing other texts/authors—does it advance an argument seen in other authors?
Symbolization: see if the text embodies a system of values/outlooks in a culture
Set-theoretic Relationship Framing: try and explain the text using existing theories to see how the theory relates to the text
Evaluating Qualitative Research
Traits of “Robust”, or Credible Qualitative Research
Robust research results stem from a logical structure which is internally valid, meaning its conclusions cohere with its premises, and demonstrates a relationship of relevance between its explanation of the object of study and the object’s observation or analysis.
Such a relationship can be considered robust if the empirical demonstration of its relevance has been clearly replicated.
For non-empirical research designs, robustness can be achieved through a discourse analysis which pertains with convincing congruity to the object of study, or a transcendental logic which, besides its inherent impeccability, is demonstrated to thematically encompass the object of study and is thus competent to elucidate it.
Forms of Qualitative Claims
Conjectural Claim: explanation advanced obtains to no aspect of primary data, but rests wholly on an analytic judgment. May be consistent in principle, but lacks pertinence to phenomena in question.
Possible Claim: primary data demonstrates the hypothetical explanation to have relevance to the phenomena in question, though whether such relevance is causal or accidental is not established.
Probable Claim: primary data demonstrates hypothetical explanation to be necessary to the operation of the phenomena in question, though whether this claim holds greater causal weight than other probable claims is not established.
Corroborated Claim: primary data demonstrates the hypothetical explanation to be sufficient in itself for the occurrence of the phenomena in question. Does not preclude the relevance of other explanations, but does disestablish their necessity
Pitfalls of Causality: Problems in Causal Inferences
Causal inference is a procedure for reaching explanatory conclusions through the conduct of empirical observation. It is ensnarled in the inherent difficulty of identifying the intangible. Given that causality is implicit to the phenomenon observed and not essentially evinced in the observation thereof, only a plausible association of causality may be inferred from observation.
Overcoming Causal Inference: Conditional Independence
The social sciences achieve a level of methodological certitude which partly approximates that of the natural sciences by assuming conditional independence.
This involves the usage of control groups. Cases can be assigned to control groups if they are quantitatively unrelated to the characteristics adjudged relevant in the outcome under study.
Thereby, researchers are able to isolate the intended variables of study and deduce the relevance of hypotheses purporting to explain their interaction.
This solution is imperfect however, as it relies upon prior demonstration of quantitative relevance or irrelevance of especial cases which may not prove ascertainable in the parameters of a research question.
Other Dangers of Causality: Spurious Correlations
Correlation and causation are superficially similar insofar as they both appear to give grounds for developing explanatory significance in the relationship between phenomena, namely the power of one entity to elicit a certain response from another.
The two are distinguished however, because whereas causality truly defines an objects dependence upon another, correlation only indicates the possibility of this.
A correlative relationship cannot deny the possibly greater relevance of other phenomena—confounding variables— could have in determining how an object responds to certain conditions.
The Final Criteria: Internal and External Validity
Internal validity is the virtue of internal logical consistency a research inquiry ought to possess, while external validity is the virtue of relevance to the field of study the research inquiry would desirably possess as well.
An inquiry is internally valid if the conclusions it propounds follows clearly and consistently from the premises it presents.
An inquiry is externally valid if the conclusions it draws do in fact accurately explain the object of study.
While external validity may only be attainable within certain ontological paradigms, internal validity is the currency of all intellectually virtuous scholarship. Its respective presence or absence determines the legitimacy of an argument.