Qualitative Research Methods PDF

Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Dire Dawa University College of Social Science and Humanities Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology Course Name:...

Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Dire Dawa University College of Social Science and Humanities Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology Course Name: Qualitative research Methods Course Code: SoSA 3041 Credit Hour: 3 Prepared by: Amanuel Mulualem (MA) Dire Dawa, Ethiopia Research I Page 1  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Chapter One: Introduction 1.1What is Research in General Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes. Research is original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and/or enhance understanding. Research specifically includes :the creation and development of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines (e.g. through dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues and contributions to major research databases); the invention or generation of ideas, images, performances and artifacts where these manifestly embody new or substantially developed insights; building on existing knowledge to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, policies or processes. 1.2 Social Science Research Methods Researchers working in the social sciences: psychology, sociology, anthropology etc., interested in studying human behavior and the social world inhabited by human beings, found increasing difficulty in trying to explain human behavior in quantifiable, measurable terms. Measurements tell us how often or how many people behave in a certain way, so if a research question involves exploring how much or how often something happens, it‘s probably appropriate to use quantitative methods. Qualitative research attempts to broaden and/or deepen our understanding of how things came to be the way they are in our social world. If the research question involves exploring how people experience something, or what their views are, exploring a new area where issues are not yet understood or properly identified (e.g. before developing questionnaire items), assessing whether a new service is implementable, looking at ‗real-life‘ context, or a sensitive topic where you need flexibility to avoid causing distress, your team probably needs to discuss using qualitative methodology. Research I Page 2  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. 1.3 What is qualitative research method? There are two general methodological approaches in the social sciences: quantitative and qualitative. While they are not totally understandable as opposing approaches, they do adopt a very different position on the fundamentals of the relationship between ideas and evidence. There are about as many definitions of qualitative research as there are books on the subject. Some authors highlight the research purpose and focus: Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world. Others emphasize an epistemological stance: [Qualitative research is] research using methods such as participant observation or case studies which result in a narrative, descriptive account of a setting or practice. Sociologists using these methods typically reject positivism and adopt a form of interpretive sociology. Still other definitions focus on the process and context of data collection: Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. While we don‘t disagree with the above definitions, we don‘t find them particularly useful in an applied research context. We prefer the simpler and more functional definition offered: ―Qualitative research involves any research that uses data that do not indicate ordinal values.‖ For these authors, the defining criterion is the type of data generated and/or used. In short, qualitative research involves collecting and/or working with text, images, or sounds. An outcome-oriented definition such as that proposed by Nkwi et al. avoids (typically inaccurate) generalizations and the unnecessary (and, for the most part, inaccurate) dichotomous positioning of qualitative research with respect to its quantitative counterpart. It allows for the Research I Page 3  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. inclusion of many different kinds of data collection and analysis techniques, as well as the diversity of theoretical and epistemological frameworks that are associated with qualitative research. The field of qualitative research resembles a patchwork quilt, built piece- by-piece using perspectives and methods from just about every stop along the social scientific spectrum. Qualitative research is multi method in focus, involving an interpretive, 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. Accordingly, qualitative research deploys wide range of interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the subject matter at hand. Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena. That is to say, it aims to help us to understand the social world in which we live and why things are the way they are. It is concerned with the social aspects of our world and seeks to answer questions about: Why people behave the way they do How opinions and attitudes are formed How people are affected by the events that go on around them How and why cultures and practices have developed in the way they have 1.4 Types, Nature, and Characteristics of Qualitative Research Methods Types of Qualitative Research When detailing the different types of research practices that are included under the ‗umbrella term‘ of qualitative research, numerous research practices are discussed. However, the following are listed by Merriam (2009) as some of the most commonly used types of qualitative research. They include: Basic Qualitative Research Phenomenology Research I Page 4  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Grounded Theory Ethnography Basic Qualitative Research The basis of basic qualitative research is grounded in constructivism with reality being constructed by individuals as they interact within a certain environment. The intent of basic qualitative research is to understand the meaning individuals have attached to a certain phenomena they have experienced. Some scholars states that researchers conducting basic qualitative research would be primarily interested in ―(1) how people interpret their experiences, (2) how they construct their worlds, and (3) what meaning they attribute to their experiences‖. While other types of qualitative research share this same focus, other types of qualitative research include additional components not found in basic qualitative research. Researchers conducting basic qualitative research typically collect data through analysis of documents, observations, and interviews. Data analysis then occurs with data being organized according to themes, or reoccurring patterns. Phenomenology Originally a school of philosophical thought, phenomenology was regarded as ―a study of people‘s conscious experiences of their life-world‖. Phenomenological researchers base their studies on the premise that individuals‘ shared experiences results in an ‗essence‘ or core meaning. With phenomenology researchers compare and analyze people‘s shared experiences in order to determine the ‗essence‘ or core meaning of the phenomena. This type of research requires researchers to explore their own experiences with a certain phenomena in order to account for their personal viewpoints and assumptions. This process, known as epoche, has become a common component of all qualitative research. Once researchers have gain awareness of personal viewpoints and assumptions, they must suspend prior beliefs in order to examine the phenomena of interest. Topics such as love, loneliness and forgiveness are some areas commonly researched with phenomenology. Phenomenological research typically utilizes interviews for data collection. Research I Page 5  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Grounded Theory Grounded theory is a set of fully integrated and practical steps aimed at guiding the research process to completion, the end product of which is the generation of theoretical statements about the data. The chief mark is that this theory is grounded in data and built up from the bottom. It is a classic form of induction and is frequently invoked as a form of qualitative data analysis, although rarely practiced p r o p e r l y. Grounded theory originated in the work of Barney Glaser and Anslem Strauss as a method of enquiry in qualitative research developed from their collaborative work in medical sociology (1965). This reinforces the point that grounded theory began itself as a bottom-up method, based upon actual research experience. The method was subsequently written up and published in the 1967 book The Discovery of Grounded Theory. The original ideas were later developed and extended by Glaser (1978) and by Strauss and Juliet Corbin (1990). Grounded theory research, first introduced in 1967, follows the same process as other qualitative research; however, grounded theory differs as it concludes with the creation of a theory. Thus, substantive theories are produced with grounded theory research. Substantive theories differ from other forms of theories (e.g., Grand Theories) as they involve and every- day occurrence and are more specific in nature. Grounded theory research often builds theories based on the changes that occur over time with a certain phenomena as well as other process- oriented topics. There are some terms commonly used in reference to grounded theory research. The first, theoretical sampling describes the ongoing process by which researchers use collected data to determine additional sources and types of data to collect. The constant comparative method refers to a type of data analysis in which researchers compare segments of data with other segments to determine existing differences and/or similarities in order to analyze patterns by which categories are then developed. Although many other types of qualitative research also utilize the constant comparative method for data analysis, such studies differ from grounded theory research in that no theory results from data analysis. Another term commonly used in grounded research, core category, refers to a main category developed from data analysis that is as connected as possible to the other categories. The core category is of Research I Page 6  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. importance to grounded research as it is used to develop theory. The core category, as well as any hypotheses and other categories, are ―grounded‖ in (or derived from) the data collected. Unlike other types of research, hypotheses developed through grounded research are not identified at the beginning of study but instead are identified at the conclusion of the study once they have been derived from data collected. Grounded theory is thus an inductive approach, and the term reflects the fact that the theory is rooted in or ‗grounded‘ in the data. Grounded theory was developed at a time when, unfortunately, researchers following primarily qualitative or quantitative lines heavily critiqued each other‘s work and approaches to understanding the world. Grounded theory offered researchers investigating qualitative questions a concrete method for carrying out a study. While some interpretive scholars have critiqued grounded theory for unnecessarily trying to resemble quantitative methods by establishing a detailed approach for conducting research, grounded theory remains popular today. Grounded theory is an iterative process and involves simultaneous data collection and analysis. A project begins with a general guiding research question. As data are initially gathered, the researcher identifies core themes and concepts from the data. Data collection may shift to focus on learning more about these themes. At the same time, the researcher remains open to identifying other important issues. The early stages of the research tend to be very open as far as what information is collected since there are usually no theoretical restrictions on what is considered relevant. Data collection consequently can take a long period of time. Later phases are spent verifying data and putting data into meaningful categories. Coding of data, making comparisons, and theoretical sampling are central to grounded theory Ethnography th First conducted by anthropologists in the 19 century, ethnographic research is the study of culture and society. Although culture has been defined in various ways, culture includes attitudes, beliefs, and values held by a certain group of individuals. Ethnographic research is a process as well as a product and can take several forms (e.g., auto ethnography, life history). Data collection for ethnographic research typically requires the researcher to act as a participant observer and immerse themselves within the culture and/or society being studied. Interviews, observations, collected artifacts and documents, and the researcher‘s journal all act as additional Research I Page 7  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. sources of data. The report of findings consists of not just a description of particular events and data sources, but requires researchers to share the understandings they‘ve garnered of the phenomena. A note of caution, while many qualitative studies might be labeled as ethnographic simply due to the field‘s origination from ethnographic research, not all qualitative studies bear the necessary components to be considered ethnography. Ethnography has a distinguished history in the social sciences. There have been `travelers' tales' for centuries, going back even to antiquity, which count as a form of ethnographic research in that they purported to represent some aspect of social reality on the basis of close acquaintance with and observation of it. But it begins properly only at the beginning of the twentieth century with two entirely independent intellectual developments: the classical tradition of social anthropology in Britain and the Chicago School of sociology. The former referred to its practices as ethnography and the latter as participant observation. However, its meaning has broadened since then, a l t h o u g h the term e t h n o g r a p h y is still mistakenly u s e d interchangeably with p a r t i c i p a n t observation. Ethnography is also occasionally misunderstood as synonymous with qualitative research as a whole. More properly, ethnography is understood as `field research' or `fieldwork'. In this manner ethnography can be defined as the study of people in naturally occurring settings or fields' by means of methods which capture their social meanings and ordinary activities, involving the researcher participating directly in the setting (if not always the activities) in order to collect data in a systematic manner but without meaning being imposed on them externally. The capture of these social meanings was called by Clifford Geertz `thick description' to emphasize the richness and depth of ethnographic data, and is more colloquially called `telling it like it is' or `insider knowledge'. Ethnography is not one particular method of data collection but several which are combined flexibly to achieve the aims and approach t h a t distinguish ethno- graphy as a style of research. Following on from the definition of ethnography above, its objectives are to understand the social meanings and activities of people in a given `field' or setting, and its approach involves close association with, and often participation in, this setting. Several methods of data collection tend to be used in ethnography, such as unstructured interviewing, participant observation, personal d o c u m e n t s , vignettes a n d Research I Page 8  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. discourse analysis. In this way ethnography tends routinely to involve triangulation of methods. While these methods also are used outside ethnographic research what distinguishes their use in ethnography is utilization towards meeting the characteristic aims and approach of ethnography. There is a further reason for understanding ethnography as a style of research rather than a single method of data collection. It is umbilically tied to naturalism as a theoretical and philosophical framework so that method and methodology are interpolated in ethnography to the point of being almost indistinguishable. Ethnography is predisposed to naturalism: it concentrates on topics that lend themselves readily to the study of people's views, beliefs and meanings. And while it is the case that most topics can be addressed in various ways, ethnographers are predisposed to ask certain sorts of questions that access people's meanings, beliefs and interpretations. Above all, ethnography focuses on those naturally occurring non-experimental situations that characterize the methodological position of naturalism. However, the interpolation of method and methodology in ethnography has been problematic. Within naturalism ethnography was privileged as the principal method and its weaknesses were overlooked in exaggerated claims for its efficacy, while critics of naturalism as a theory of knowledge rejected ethnography out of hand. This has led to two sorts of criticisms of ethnography. The natural science critique condemns ethnography for failing to meet the canons of natural science. Some principles it offends have to do with the role of the researcher. The natural science model of research, for example, does not permit the researcher to become a variable in the experiment yet ethnographers are not detached from the research but rather are themselves part of the study or by their obtrusive presence come to in¯uence the ®eld. If participant observation is used in data collection, ethnography can involve introspection, whereby the researcher's own experiences and attitude changes while sharing the field become part of the data. Another principle ethnography offends concerns methods of data collection. Methods that are unstructured, flexible and open-ended can appear to involve unsystematic data collection, in which the absence of structure prevents an assessment of the data because differences that emerge can be attributed to variations in the way they were collected. The rationale behind the Research I Page 9  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. highly structured methods of the natural sciences is to minimize extraneous variations in order to isolate `real' differences in the data. This is why methods within natural science models of social research are designed to eliminate both the effects of the researcher and of the tool used to collect the data. Ethnography also breaches dearly held principles about the nature of data. The natural science model of social research seeks to describe and measure social phenomena by assigning numbers to the phenomena. Ethnography also describes and measures, but it does so by means of extracts of natural language and deals with quality and meanings, which seem shifty, unreliable, elusive and ethereal. The other set of criticisms constitutes what can be called the postmodern critique. This attacks the exaggerated claims made by some ethnographers who fail to recognise not only its weaknesses but also those of science generally in the light of postmodernism's deconstruction of science as an intellectual enterprise. In this respect, all knowledge is relative, so there are no guarantees as to the worth of the activities of researchers or the truthfulness of their statements. This `moment' in the development of ethnography is referred to by postmodern critics as the double crisis'. The first is the crisis of representation. The claim was challenged that ethnography can produce universally valid knowledge by accurately capturing the nature of the social world `as it is' ± a view described as `natvie realism'. All accounts are constructions and the whole issue of which account more accurately represents social reality is meaningless. The second is the crisis of legitimation. In as much as ethnographic descriptions are partial, selective, even autobiographical, because they are tied to the particular ethnographer and the contingencies under which the data were collected, the traditional criteria for evaluating ethnography become problematic, as terms like `validity', `reliability' and `generalisability' lose their authority to legitimate the data. These crises have implications for how we should understand ethnographic accounts, for they do not neutrally represent the social world. There are implications for the claims ethnographers are able to make about their account, for it is no longer a privileged `thick description' of the social world from the inside. And there are implications for the written text, which attempts to represent in writing the reality of the `field', for ethnographers should no longer make foolish authoritative claims in order to validate Research I Page 10  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. their account as the accurate representation of reality but instead be `reflexive'. However, ethnography has not been left completely in a postmodern state of total skepticism and relativism in which `anything goes'. Some ethnographers have rescued it from the worst excesses of postmodernism while still accepting some of the more valid criticisms of naõttve realism. A number of sets of guidelines exist by which the practice of ethnography is codified and can be made rigorous. What one might call `post postmodern ethnography' advocates the possibility and desirability of systematic ethnography and remains rooted in weaker versions of realism. The best example would be Martyn Hammersley's notion of `subtle realism'. Post postmodern ethnography contends that while no knowledge is certain, there are phenomena that exist independent of us as researchers and knowledge claims about them can be judged reasonably accurately in terms of their likely truth. This share with naõÈve realism the idea that research investigates independently know- able phenomena but breaks with it in denying that we have direct access to these phenomena. It shares with anti-realism the recognition that all knowledge is based on assumptions and human constructions, but rejects that we have to abandon the idea of truth itself. Theoretical niceties, however, have not infected all modern ethnographers and many ethnographers carry on regardless of the critique proffered by postmodern- ism. Inspired by realism and hermeneutic methodologies, classic ethnographic studies continue in which it is believed that thick descriptions are possible and that by close familiarity with people in the field an insider's account can accurately capture social reality and unambiguously represent it in textual form. Methodological disputes notwithstanding, ethnography remains a very useful approach to study those parts of society that quantitative methods cannot access and where the social meanings of the people, families, groups and communities which inhabit this world are unknown or unusual. It has seen applications to most areas of social science, particularly in the past to the study of work, deviance, communities, policing and health and medicine. It can also be applied to the study of social policy and to policy making. Research I Page 11  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Characteristics of Qualitative Research While there has been debate as to an exact definition for qualitative research, there are some primary characteristics that can be seen across the different practices employed by qualitative researchers. Scholars offered the following four characteristics to describe qualitative research. The first characteristic of qualitative research lies in the purpose of qualitative research, to understand the meaning attributed to individuals‘ experiences. The focus of meaning people attribute to their experiences is on the process rather than the outcome. Likewise, the intent of qualitative research is used to study individuals‘ understanding of their experiences, not researchers‘ perceptions of individuals‘ experiences. The second characteristic common to qualitative research is that the primary instrument used to collect and analyze data is the researcher themselves. As can be expected, certain biases might occur when researchers act as the data collection instrument. Rather than attempting to remove such biases, qualitative research operates on the belief that biases presented by the researcher must be considered, accounted for and monitored to determine their impact on data collection and analysis. Third, qualitative research is regarded as an inductive process as researchers often use qualitative studies to gather evidence in order to establish theories and hypotheses that previous research has neglected. The final characteristic associated with qualitative research considers the products gleaned from the research. Qualitative research provides highly descriptive data in the form of words and pictures rather than the numbers produced by other types of research (Merriam, 2009). Generally, Qualitative Research Methods is characterized by  Assumes multiple and dynamic realities, contextual  Natural setting, uncontrolled observation  Data precedes theory  Process-oriented  Findings not generalizable  Holistic orientation Research I Page 12  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M.  Said to be ―grounded, discovery-oriented, exploratory, expansionist, descriptive‖ [The theory is grounded in the data.]  Inductive approach  Researcher is the instrument  Uses ―insight‖ and sensitized concepts  ―Meaning‖ is central concept  Works with research ―participant‖  Dynamic nature of research precludes step-by-step instruction Qualitative inquiry assumes that reality is socially constructed by every unique individual, from within their own unique contextual interpretation. Like quantitative research, qualitative research can be used to study almost anything you can imagine in the social world, including societal and cultural phenomena; individual behaviors; and decision-making and thought processes. However, the tradition of qualitative research tends to focus on the meaning and motivations that underlie cultural symbols (e.g. language), personal experiences, and phenomena and on detailed understandings of processes in the social world. The goals of qualitative research, on the other hand, are to understand processes, experiences and meanings people assign to things. But for the most part qualitative research focuses on how people make sense of their settings and experiences through symbols, social roles, identities, and other elements of culture and why people think and act as they do. The emphasis in qualitative research is on individuals‘ own interpretations of their experiences and studying what they say and do in detail. The data are observations of conversations and other forms of social interaction, the use of symbols, and increasingly images. Typically qualitative interpretation is in the form of text with little or no use of numbers. 1.5 The difference Between qualitative and quantitative research methods  Qualitative Research tends to focus on how people or groups of people can have (somewhat) different ways of looking at reality (usually social or psychological reality) while quantitative research tends to focus on ways of describing and understanding reality by the discovery of general ―laws‖. Research I Page 13  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M.  Qualitative method takes account of complexity by incorporating the real-world context – can take different perspectives on board. Quantitative method takes account of complexity by precise definition of the focus of interest and techniques that mean that external ―noise‖ can be discounted  Qualitative method studies behavior in natural settings or uses people‘s accounts as data; usually no manipulation of variables. Quantitative method involves manipulation of some variables (independent variables) while other variables (which would be considered to be extraneous and confounding variables) are held constant.  Qualitative method focuses on reports of experience or on data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically.Quantitative method uses statistical techniques that allow us to talk about how likely it is that something is ―true‖ for a given population in an objective or measurable sense  Qualitative method focuses on description and interpretation and might lead to development of new concepts or theory, or to an evaluation of an organizational process. Quantitative method focuses on cause & effect - e.g. uses experiment to test (try to disprove) and hypothesis  Qualitative method employs a flexible, emergent but systematic research process. Quantitative method requires the research process to be defined in advance  Quantitative and qualitative research methods differ primarily in: their analytical objectives, the types of questions they pose, the types of data collection instruments they use, the forms of data they produce, the degree of flexibility built into study design  The key difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is their flexibility. Generally, quantitative methods are fairly inflexible. With quantitative methods such as surveys and questionnaires, for example, researchers ask all participants identical questions in the same order. The response categories from which participants may choose are ―closed-ended‖ or fixed. The advantage of this inflexibility is that it allows for meaningful comparison of responses across participants and study sites. However, it requires a thorough understanding of the important questions to ask, the best way to ask them, and the range of possible responses. Qualitative methods are typically more flexible – that is, they allow greater spontaneity and adaptation of the interaction between Research I Page 14  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. the researcher and the study participant. For example, qualitative methods ask mostly ―open-ended‖ questions that are not necessarily worded in exactly the same way with each participant. With open-ended questions, participants are free to respond in their own words, and these responses tend to be more complex than simply ―yes‖ or ―no.‖ In addition, with qualitative methods, the relationship between the researcher and the participant is often less formal than in quantitative research. Participants have the opportunity to respond more elaborately and in greater detail than is typically the case with quantitative methods. In turn, researchers have the opportunity to respond immediately to what participants say by tailoring subsequent questions to information the participant has provided.  The goal of both qualitative and quantitative research is to achieve a better understanding about how the world works. But qualitative and quantitative methodologies achieve this goal differently, beginning with the conceptualization and design of the study and moving on to the sampling frame, data collection strategies, and how the data are analyzed. Scholars select between qualitative and quantitative approaches depending on the nature of their research problem. Perhaps the simplest way of distinguishing qualitative and quantitative research is the following: quantitative research uses statistical tools to aid in the interpretation of data, while qualitative research investigates questions without statistical tools, relying instead on the ability of the researcher to observe patterns. Both approaches are increasingly making use of visual tools as well. Indeed, while there are strong and separate traditions of quantitative and qualitative research in the social sciences, the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming more blurred. It is useful when beginning to learn methods to think about quantitative and qualitative methods as different approaches, but it‘s equally important not to think that the distinction is too rigid. Research I Page 15  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Chapter Two: Data Gathering Techniques in Qualitative Research 2.1 Participant Observation Observation is a fundamental part of social life and is critical to many forms of social interaction and work. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between observation done to accomplish everyday life and work and that done to understand them. Here again, observation is an inherent part of many types of research; it forms part of laboratory experiments as mice are observed in mazes or chemicals in test tubes. In social research there are two parameters along which observation can be categorized as a research tool. The more familiar typology is based on the degree of participation by the researcher in what is being studied; the other is structured around the level of awareness subjects have of being observed. In the first case the normal contrast is between unobtrusive and participant observation, in the latter, covert and overt observation, and the two sets of distinctions are related. In participant observation observers participate in the everyday life they are trying to understand. This contrasts with observation where the researcher stands aloof, a form of observation that is part of unobtrusive research, where the intention is to engage in research unknown to subjects in order to avoid the reactive effect. Unobtrusive observation is mostly covert, where subjects do not know they are being observed or are part of a researcher project. But this is not always the case. Unobtrusive observation plays a great part in psychology, where the observation is managed by means of a two-way mirror, and subjects are put in experimental situations where, although the observer does not participate, the observation can be overt in that people may know they are involved in research. Unobtrusive observation therefore does not always eliminate the reactive effect. However, with sociology's focus on naturally occurring behaviour, where subjects tend not to be placed in experimental situations, unobtrusive observation tends to be Research I Page 16  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. mostly covert. Nonetheless, it provides a very limited form of data. With participant observation data obtained as a result of watching the phenomenon under study is augmented by data generated through introspection on the part of the researcher. That is, by the observer reflecting on the internal experiences arising from doing and sharing the same everyday life as those under study, a process sometimes also called `auto-observation'. In this way, data collected by participant observation are not external stimuli unaffected by the intervention of the observer: the experiences, attitude changes and feelings of the observer form a central part of his or her understanding. Unobtrusive observation avoids this reactive effect but at the cost of reliance on very limited forms of data that which is garnered by watching. Thus in social research unobtrusive observation either requires no attention to be given to the social meanings involved in the phenomenon, and thus to the study of fairly unambiguous phenomena, or observation of phenomena known to the researcher where these taken-for-granted social meanings already shape their understanding. Unobtrusive observation, for example, would be impossible in social anthropological research of new and different cultures and people groups; which is why classic social anthropology was one of the intellectual pillars of participant observation. Overt unobtrusive observation is popular in psychology where the actual behavior is the focus such as what toys children use in playrooms rather than the social meanings of the behavior to the participants. There are occasions in sociology when unambiguous behavior needs to be studied and for which covert unobtrusive observation is suitable, such as study of pedestrian behavior, the social formation of queues, and even, as in one study by Stone, the behavior of men outside porno- graphic bookstores. Most of these topics, however, involve phenomena whose social meaning can be understood as a result of familiarity. Where this familiarity is lacking, or where the researcher does not want to rely on taken-for-granted knowledge, participant observation comes into its own. Participant observation can also be done either overtly or covertly. In classic anthropological studies with `foreign' and `exotic' people groups and cultures, where the researcher was white and the subjects not, overt observation was the norm. Among other things, the use of translators where researchers did not know the local language Research I Page 17  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. perforce required that subjects know they were being researched. As anthropology has moved into analysing modern and industrialised settings in which researchers can `pass' as ordinary members, it has been possible to engage in covert research. Not all participant observation is covert but a lot has been, particularly when the focus has been on sensitive groups, settings and behaviour in which a pronounced reactive effect is anticipated. Overt participant observation is essential in situations where is it impossible to `pass' as an ordinary member, and when specialised forms of behaviour are required, particularly in occupational settings, such as when studying police forces. This is why work-based ethnography has been done covertly mostly in settings where the occupational tasks are menial and low skilled. Specialised occupational tasks have tended to require members themselves to undertake observation, overtly or covertly, such as Holdaway's ethnography of policing done while as a serving member of the police (1983), or researchers coming in to do overt research (Brewer, 1991) and having to remain distant as a result. One American sociologist decided to enlist in the air force to undertake participant observation in a highly specialised occupational setting rather than come in overtly as an outsider, although this degree of dedication and time commitment is rarely possible. The participant unobtrusive dichotomy is not as sharp as the contrast suggests. Often non- participative forms of observation involve the observer in some manipulation or construction of the setting, such as the arrangement of furniture or the positioning of artifacts, and in experimental situations the observer intrudes without participating in the activity. It is thus sometimes necessary to distinguish between level of participation and level of control, for some forms of non- participative observation still involve high degrees of intervention to standardize and manipulate the observation. Likewise, the presence of the participant observer may be unknown or unseen by subjects in some instances and contexts as they are perceived as a continuum, around the middle of which there is much blurring and overlap. The same is true for the overt covert distinction. Overt participant observation requires the permission of the gatekeeper but not everyone in the setting may know of the research or be aware that at that time they are being observed. Some forms of covert research often involve the complicity of one or more Research I Page 18  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. members of the ®eld in order to manage the fieldwork and maintain the pretence. Sometimes participant observers let some groups know of the research and others not, by design (to test the impact of their presence) or by accident (in that the pretence can be discovered by some), although this creates difficult relations in the field and can be problematic to maintain. The level of knowledge subjects have of the observation again should be understood as a continuum with blurring in the middle. It is possible nonetheless to list the respective advantages and disadvantages of overt and covert observation in ideal type terms. Overt observation, for example, assists in researchers maintaining their objectivity precisely because of the detachment and distance involved as a result of subjects knowing they are being studied. It prevents the problem of `going native', of over-identification with the subjects, that can arise when the researcher has almost to become an `insider' in order to pass as an ordinary member to avoid disclosure of the observation. Access to some settings, people or groups may have to be negotiated with a gatekeeper because of the impossibility of entry in some disguised role, and some may even find a special status in being the object of research and grant permission because of it. If members know of the observation, they can assist the observer by treating him or her as an incompetent, a non-initiate, and thus better explain things. Members are often assumed to share the same tacit knowledge and thus outsiders can have things made explicit that members are thought to know already. There can be advantages in overt observation because the people or groups in the setting perceive the researcher as neutral, as above members' conflicts and partisanship, and this can facilitate access to decision-making processes within the field. Above all, overt observation permits use of other data collection techniques alongside observation; interviews can be conducted, questionnaires sent out and natural conversations openly recorded, all things impossible if the research is disguised. However, the gatekeeper or subjects in the ®eld can impose constraints when the observation is overt, the researcher becomes an intervening variable in the field, influencing what is observed, and the data becomes distorted by an unknown `reactive effect' which can restrict the ability of the researcher to get close to the people and capture life from an insider's point of view. In reverse mirror image, with covert observation, closeness with the group and immersion in the setting can Research I Page 19  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. be more easily generated (although still not guar- anteed) because it avoids the distance created by knowledge of the research. It avoids the problem of having to get permission, and it removes the possibility of constraints being imposed by subjects in the field. Nonetheless, special personal skills are needed to take on a disguised role and researchers can become so self- conscious about not revealing their identity that their observation is seriously handicapped. The covertness may or may not involve the researcher pretending to be a full member of the group or setting, in that some other role may be utilized passing as a full member of the group or setting, there is the problem of over- identification `going native' and associated problems arising from lack of detachment. Moreover, there is the problem of collecting data from the role as ordinary member. Covert observation requires the researcher to appear typical and since ordinary members may not ask probing questions, make notes or utilise data collection techniques, the research either risks disclosure or is severely restricted. Above all, covert observation raises serious ethical concerns since it involves people being deceived and fails to obtain their informed consent. Not only does this breach the dignity of the subjects, it risks harm to the researcher and the discipline as a whole should deceit be shown to be involved. This can make withdrawal from the ®eld very dif®cult for the covert observer once people become aware of the deception and it cuts off future opportunities for research by someone else. For this reason, covert observation is not encouraged; codes of conduct from ethical committees or professional associations either disallow or discourage it. While much of the ethical debate has focused on covert observation, it is important to note that other methods also breach the principle of informed consent and even where permission is obtained for observational research, this often involves someone else higher up the hierarchy giving permission on a person's behalf lower down. Sometimes however, it can be the only method if the group or setting is closed or hostile to research, although suspicion often surrounds this defence since covert observation can be too readily resorted to. These distinctions between types of observation belong to realism as an approach to social research since they represent alternative ideas for improving the correspondence between social reality `as it is' and the observer's representation of it. Post-structuralist Research I Page 20  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. and postmodern notions of research dispute that there is unadulterated `objective' reality anyway to be affected by whether the observation involves participation or not or whether subjects know of the research or not. All research is contaminated and socially situated by the people involved and the methods used, amongst other things. Such an approach tends to make irrelevant most of the tortured judgements around what type of observation to use. Participant observation Participant observation is at one level self-explanatory, in that it involves research- led observation of the social world while simultaneously participating in it. This observation can be done overtly or covertly. Sometimes a distinction is drawn between classic participant observation, where the researcher utilises a new and unfamiliar participative role from which to observe, and `observant participation', where observation is done from a role the researcher already possesses and which is familiar and known. In the former case it is essential that researchers develop an insider status in order to come close to understanding the initially strange situation; in the latter, that they remain distant from taken-for-granted knowledge and cultural assumptions associated with the role and become relative strangers. The key to the observation done with either kind of participation is that the data obtained from watching the phenomena under study are enhanced through introspection by the researcher who undergoes the same experiences, attitude changes and events as people under study. The balance of this data may therefore yield a richness of detail that other methods may not achieve. Introspection, however, is criticised as unscientic, and participation in the ®eld under study ensures that the researcher is an intervening variable in the research. While unobtrusive observation, done purely by watching, may avoid the complications that arise from the researcher's own presence in the ®eld, it relies on a more limited form of observational data. Participant observation is associated with qualitative research, and particularly ethnography, although the latter is much broader and uses a range of other data collection techniques. The `participant observer' f i eld technique has been well established in social and cultural anthropology since Malinowski, where it has mostly Research I Page 21  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. been associated with studying pre-literate and pre-industrial societies. It has also been adopted as a method of research by sociologists in such fields as education, medicine, deviance and religion. It was the Chicago School of sociology at the beginning of the twentieth century that first used participant observation, amongst other methods, to study an urban environment. One of the main justifications for this method of data collection is that there are everyday processes that cannot be studied in depth without the researcher being in close proximity to the individuals involved. The reactive effect associated with most kinds of social research gives added value to covert participant observation Since co-participants are unaware that they are subjects of research and thus their behaviour is unaffected by knowledge of the research, although the researcher‘s presence still intervenes. This impulse to gain intimacy and closeness highlights the intellectual authority that participant observation gets from the methodological position known as naturalism. The second generation of Chicago sociologists, like Herbert Blumer, pioneered this methodological position in the mid-twentieth century and, together with the rebirth of interpretative sociology in the 1960s, brought to more prominence the necessity of gaining access to the world-view of individuals in different situations by means of participant observation. Participant observation therefore concentrates on research topics that expose the beliefs and social meanings held by individuals and groups. The intent is to `be true to the things themselves'; to study the social world from `the inside' and to offer `thick descriptions' richly and deeply embedded in the setting under study. Types of participation A. Covert Participant observation -entering organizations and participating in their activities without anyone knowing that they were conducting research. B. Overt Participant observation where everyone knows who the researcher is and what she/he is doing , however, can be valuable and rewarding methods for qualitative inquiry 2.2 Focus Group Discussions Focus group may be called discussion groups or group interviews. A number of people are asked to come together in a group to discuss a certain issue. Research I Page 22  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. In a way focus groups resemble interviews, but focus group transcripts can be analysed so as to explore the ways in which the participants interact with each other and influence each other‘s expressed ideas, which obviously cannot happen with one-to-one interview material. In common with semi-structured interviews, focus group conveners use topic guides to help them keep the discussion relevant to the research question. Focus groups are not necessarily a cheaper and quicker means to an end than are interviews, as focus groups may be more difficult to manage and more difficult to convene simply because more people are involved. Focus groups are considered to work well with approximately 8 people, but this is not always easy to arrange – do you invite more in the expectation that one or two will not turn up? If so, how do you manage if 10 or 12 present themselves? Or if not, what if only 3 or 4 turn up (as a courtesy to them you will probably have to proceed)? Focus groups are ideally run in accessible locations where participants can feel comfortable and relaxed. The time of day and facilities offered will need to be appropriate for the particular target member: for example is a crèche needed? Is there adequate car parking space? It is better if the discussion is not interrupted and so it is a good idea to offer refreshments and to point out toilet facilities beforehand. Serving refreshments as people arrive also serves as a good ―ice-breaker‖ and allows participants to meet each other before the focus group starts. An important preliminary for conducting focus groups is laying down the ―ground rules‖. One of these concerns confidentiality and this needs careful planning at the proposal and ethics committee application stage. Members of a focus group may not speak openly unless they are comfortable that others present will treat their contributions as confidential. It could be laid down as a condition of the focus group that it is expected that the content of the discussion which is about to take place will only be known by those present. All participants should indicate their agreement to this. Alternatively, if this seems unrealistic, the facilitator could point out that there are ways of presenting ideas that avoid breaching confidentiality: for instance, a participant can say ―I have heard on the grapevine that ‗x‘ sometimes happens‖ rather than saying ―‗x‘ has happened to me‖, and that participants might adopt this policy. Acting as facilitator of a focus group, the researcher must allow all participants to express themselves and must cope with the added problem of trying to prevent more than one person speaking at a time, in order to permit identification of the speakers for the purposes of Research I Page 23  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. transcription and analysis. This is something else which should be requested when laying down the ―ground rules‖. Unless the proceedings are being videoed, it is a good idea to have an observer present. This person‘s role could be to note which participant is saying what, which can be done if each person is labeled with a number or letter and the relevant label is noted alongside the first word or two of his/her contribution. Another point to make clear at the outset is the planned completion time for the discussion. Focus groups Focus groups can be described as a research approach whereby a group of individuals are selected to discuss together, in a focused and moderated manner, the topic under research. Up until the 1980s focus groups were, in effect, unused within modern social science. Although previously used by Merton and Kendall in the 1940s, since that period they were predominately a market research method. In more recent years the use of focus groups and the esteem in which they are held have increased among social scientists, particularly with the publication of David Morgan's practical guide Focus Groups as Qualitative Research in 1988 and again in 1997. However, despite the growing usage of focus groups as a research method, it still occupies only a small corner of qualitative research. The suspicion of using `new methods' such as focus groups is unfounded. It is in reality no different than other qualitative research techniques in that the researcher aims to discover what people believe and feel by actually asking their opinion, albeit unusually for sociologists, in a group setting. Focus groups can be used both a s a self contained method and a technique which may be used in conjunction with others. Flexibility therefore is one of the greatest benefits of this approach. Focus groups however are often perceived as a quick and easy approach to carrying out research. This is of course a misconception that regularly tarnishes the image of qualitative research as a whole. The focus group method is often thought of as another f o r m of group interviewing. However, it is important to hi ghli ght t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n both approaches. With group interviewing, the emphasis is placed on the questions and responses between the researcher a n d participants. Focus groups, on the other hand, rely on the interaction within the focus group itself. Advantageously a real benefit of this interaction is the sharing Research I Page 24  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. of views, experiences and stories between participants, and the insightful a nd rich data which is often produced. Consequently this can often be more intense and valuable than if all the participants were interviewed separately. Observing t h i s interplay and the p o s i t i o n s t a k e n within the focus group has direct linkages for the researcher with the technique of participant observation. Planning is an essential aspect of all research, but it is a fundamental dimension of focus group research. Many of the problems as so ci at ed with focus groups are usually based on poor preparation and unclear objectives. As in all research, one should be clear when it is most appropriate to use a particular research technique, be it in a self contained, supplementary or multi method approach. The easiest test for whether or not the focus group approach should be used, is to test how easily participants could discuss the topic under investigation in a group manner. If one decides that the issues are too sensitive then this is perhaps a justification for using another technique. Alternatively this sensitivity in itself could form part of the research process but must be borne in mind when thinking through the practical steps. The practical organization of focus groups involves issues relating to formulating the research questions, which should be open ended and tested so that they are easily understood. The more unstructured the focus group, the less questions should be used, in order to give ample time for wider discussion. Unstructured focus groups usually have between two to three questions for a two-hour session. On the other hand, structured focus groups are more tightly facilitated with the aim being to gain as much data on the particular set of questions usually four to five distinct issues as possible. The recommended number of people per group is usually six to ten although it can work with a few more or less either way. It is common to have only one focus group meeting with a particular group of people. The researcher, however, may on occasion deem it necessary to have more than one meeting with a particular group and therefore delve that much deeper into the subject with that group. The total number of focus groups within a research project is dependent on issues such as timescale, financial budget, and the issue under investigation. In the main, it is usually between three to five per subject area. Research I Page 25  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. It is essential t h a t the t a r g e t e d research g r o u p i s clearly established. The researcher must be clear if there is a specific type or category of people whom they wish to participate in the f oc us group, f o r example, rural dwellers. It is also important to establish if participants are to be further refined by social grouping or category such as age, class, marital status, occupation, geographical location. While focus group participants do not have to be considered `experts' on the subject matter, it is necessary that they have a specific experience or opinion about the issue under discussion. Recruitment to focus groups may require the assistance of gatekeepers to legitimize the piece of research that is being undertaken in order to gain a representative sample. A letter of invitation to the participant explaining the background to the research and how they were selected may often be enough to get people to attend. However, a follow up telephone call can usually help to confirm numbers attending and minimize potential `no-shows'. Focus group sessions usually last from one to two hours. Anything less than one hour would not allow enough time to get to grips with the subject. Some form of icebreaker at the beginning of the session can help to make participants feel at ease. It is crucial to introduce and explain what is being researched, why the individuals are being asked to participate and why their views are being sought. The time slot of focus groups should be sensitive to the target group to ensure as full an attendance as possible. Likewise, the choice of venue can help avoid either negative or positive associations with a particular location. One should recognize that the researcher within the focus group setting moves into the role of facilitator/moderator. Therefore you should strive to ensure that participants feel they are in a comfortable, safe environment with everyone being given an equal opportunity to participate. Some form of simple agreed ground rules for discussion can help to eliminate any potential problems. If deemed necessary, the facilitator can stimulate the discussion, draw out key issues and help keep the focus group on course. As in any situation a range of group dynamics can occur from the type of interplay and interaction of the gathered participants. The most fruitful group dynamics for the gathering of direct data develop when there is a building of rapport which usually evolves out of the sharing of experiences, views and stories by participants on the research topic. The facilitator‘s role is to open the discussion, ensuring during the Research I Page 26  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. duration of the focus group that the specific research issues are addressed and any clarification obtained. Simultaneously the interaction within the focus group can sometimes stimulate new thoughts from respondents, reflection and sharing of information. The energy which can evolve around the topic under research, if facilitated with the aim of the research clearly in mind, can often lead to discussion which is both exciting and insightful and can even on occasion modify the focus of the research. The value of the focus group approach is that a group of people with a particular interest in or knowledge of the research topic are in the one room to discuss the research topic which can in turn be a resource for both the researcher and the participants. Group dynamics and interaction, the environmental condition of the research and naturalness of the research process clearly form part of the writing up and data analysis process. It is important to understand that while other forms of qualitative research may be carried out in more naturalistic surroundings, focus groups do not claim to be more than what they are, the mechanism to gather/collect focused qualitative data and sets of social interaction with a selected group within a set time frame. 2.3 Interviews Interviews are one of the most widely used and abused research methods. They provide a way of generating data by asking people to talk about their everyday lives. Their main function is to provide a framework in which respondents can express their own thoughts in their own words. They generally take the form of a conversation between two people (although they can involve larger groups ± see the entry on Focus groups). Since everyone has experience of talking to people, there is a tendency to assume that conducting interviews is easy to do and requires little skill. This leads to the notion that anyone can do an interview. Nothing could be further from the truth. Interviews are not just conversations. They are conversations with a purpose to collect information about a certain topic or research question. These `conversations' do not just happen b y chance; rather they are deliberately set up and follow certain rules and procedures. The interviewer initiates contact and the interviewee consents. Both parties know the general areas the interview will cover. The interviewer establishes the right to ask questions and the interviewee agrees to answer these questions. The interviewee also should be aware that the Research I Page 27  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. conversation will be recorded in some way and is therefore `on record'. Establishing trust and familiarity, demonstrating genuine interest in what the respondent says and appearing non-judgmental are all necessary skills for con- ducting effective interviews. The interviewer has to develop an effective balance between talking and listening. This involves remembering what the respondent has said and knowing when and when not to interrupt. The interviewer also has to decide whether to use a tape-recorder to record the data and/or to take notes. Both yield advantages and disadvantages. In other words, interviews are rarely straight- forward. They i nvol ve the i n t e r v i e w e r considering different options a n d often making difficult choices. The interview itself requires the interviewer to possess, or learn, a number of skills and to be able to apply these skills effectively during the interaction with respondents. Interviews can yield rich and valid data but they are by no means an easy option. Interviews a r e used both i n quantitative and qualitative research. However, there a r e key differences b et w e en the two approaches. Quantitative interviews typically involve the use of a structured survey instrument that asks all respondents the same questions in the same order and the responses are amenable to statistical analysis. Qualitative interviews are more flexible and open-ended. They are often used to develop ideas and research hypotheses rather than to gather facts and statistics. While the qualitative researcher may want to count or enumerate certain aspects of the data, there is less focus on quantification. Qualitative researchers are more concerned with trying to understand how ordinary people think and feel about the topics of concern to the research. Moreover, whereas quantitative research methods gather a narrow amount of information from a large number of respondents, qualitative interviews g a t h e r b r o a d e r , more i n -depth information from fewer respondents. In this sense, qualitative interviews are concerned wi t h micro-analysis. Interviews are more or less taken at face value for what they have to tell the researcher about the particular issue being discussed. They can be used as a stand- alone data collection method to provide rich information in the respondent's own words. They allow respondents to say what they think and to do so with g r e a t e r r i c h n e s s a n d s po nt an ei t y. Often interviews are com bi ned or `triangulated' with other methods. Sometimes they are used to ensure that the questions that will appear in a Research I Page 28  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. widely c i r c u l a t e d questionnaire are valid and understandable. Alternatively they may be used as follow-up to a questionnaire. This allows the researcher to explore in more depth interesting issues that may have emerged from the standard questionnaire. Interviews c a n thus lead to the development of new ideas and hypotheses and throw u p new dimensions t o be studied. In this way, interviews may complement questionnaire data. There are three main types of interview: structured, semi-structured and unstructured. These t h r e e types a r e generally d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the d e g r e e o f structure imposed on their format. Structured interviews are very similar to questionnaires in that they use a standard format consisting of pre-determined questions in a fixed order. Here the concern is with flexible forms of interviewing so the focus will be on semi-structured and unstructured interviews. Interviews can occur in a variety of formats. While some interviews occur person-to-person, others occur within a group context. Interviews are described as conversations that are used to gather information that cannot be observed. Such information might include participants‘ feelings, interpretations of certain events, and/or descriptions of past events. Unstructured interviewing The unstructured interview is considered exploratory as it is often used when a researcher needs to gather more information on a phenomenon prior to additional interviews. Unstructured interviews are most commonly used at the beginning of studies and in tandem to observations. Most studies, however, employ a combination of interview types in order to collect data. Because you are unsure of what has happened in his life, you want to enable him to talk freely and ask as few questions as possible. It is for this reason that this type of interview is called unstructured – the participant is free to talk about what he or she deems important, with little directional influence from the researcher. This type of interview can only be used for qualitative research. As the researcher tries to ask as few questions as possible, people often assume that this type of interviewing is the easiest. However, this is not necessarily the case. Researchers have to be able Research I Page 29  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. to establish rapport with the participant – they have to be trusted if someone is to reveal intimate people find it very difficult to remain quiet while another person talks, sometimes for hours on end. In unstructured interviews researchers need to remain alert, recognizing important information and probing for more detail. They need to know how to tactfully steer someone back from totally irrelevant digressions. Also, it is important to realize that unstructured interviewing can produce a great deal of data which can be difficult to analyze Semi-structured interviewing Semi-structured interviewing is perhaps the most common type of interview used in qualitative social research. In this type of interview, the research wants to know specific information which can be compared and contrasted with information gained in other interviews. To do this, the same questions need to be asked in each interview; however, the researcher also wants the interview to remain flexible so that other important information can still arise. For this types of interview, the researcher produces an interview schedule. This is taken to each interview to ensure continuity. In some research, such as a grounded theory study, the schedule is updated and revised after each interview to include more topics which have arisen as a result of the previous interview. Semi structured interviews, researchers typically begin by asking participants questions regarding topics that have been predetermined prior to the interview, but the largest portion of the interview consists of researchers exploring relevant topics as well that might come to light during the course of the interview. Structured interviewing Structured interviews are used frequently in market research.The interviewer asks you a series of questions and ticks boxes with your response. This research method is highly structured hence the name structure interview are used in quantitative research and can be conducted face to face or over the telephone, sometimes with the aid of lap-top computers. Structured interviews, occurs when a researcher develops specific questions and determines the Research I Page 30  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. order questions will be asked in advance of interviewing. One major disadvantage associated with this type of interview is that researchers‘ assumptions and prejudgments regarding specific topics might disallow them to ask certain questions that might provide a wealth of information. Note: Obviously the importance of asking good questions during interviews cannot be over- emphasized. Some suggests that researchers conduct pilot interviews in order to refine interview questions as well as interviewing skills. Interviews should be cautious to avoid jargon while interviewing participants as well as avoid leading questions, asking multiple questions at a time, and questions that can be answered with a simple yes-no response. Instead researchers should ask open-ended questions that elicit stories and other descriptive data from interviewees. Some suggests that the following six types of interview questions exists: 1. Experience and behavior questions – questions regarding interviewees‘ experiences, actions, or behaviors. 2. Opinion and values questions – the interviewer is concerned with interviewees‘ opinions or beliefs regarding a certain topic or event. Such questions might begin with ―In your opinion‖. 3. Feeling questions – require interviewees to reflect on their feelings. Such questions typically begin with ―How did you feel when‖. 4. Knowledge questions – questions that ask interviewees to recall specific factual information. 5. Sensory questions – are used to elicit information regarding what the interviewee say, heard, etc 6. Demographic questions – are used to elicit demographic information regarding information such as the interviewee‘s age, education, income, etc. Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, and Sabshin (1981, as cited in Merriam, 2009) proposed that four categories of interview questions exist including: 2.4 In-depth interviewing In-depth interviews are optimal for collecting data on individuals‘ personal histories, perspectives, and experiences, particularly when sensitive topics are being explored. 2.5 Case study Research I Page 31  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. The case study, a s a social scientific method of research, h a s a long and controversial history. A case study may be defined as `an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used' (Yin, 1989: 23). Let us examine how case studies are employed in social science research, and then consider the various criticisms of this method. Case studies are used extensively across a range of social sciences such as sociology, political science, psychology, history, economics, planning, administration, public policy, education and management studies. The case study approach arose out of the desire to comprehend social phenomena in both their complexity and `natural' context (see the entry on Ethnography for a critique of the `real'). In order to emphasise the `real-life' character of social relations, a holistic approach is sought that will allow for the maximum number of contexts of each case to be taken into account. In this sense, the case study is the opposite of an experiment, in which the researcher attempts to control the context of the interaction completely. Indeed, the case study method evolved through the recognition that the contexts and variables of some phenomena we wish to study cannot be controlled. Analysis of one to several cases that are unique with respect to the research topic Analysis primarily focused on exploring the unique quality. ·Cases are selected based on a unique (often rarely observed) quality Questions and observations should focus on, and delve deeply into, the unique feature of interest. A qualitative case study examines a phenomenon within its real-life context. Data are collected on or about a single individual, group, or event. In some cases, several cases or events may be studied. The primary purpose of a case study is to understand something that is unique to the case(s). Knowledge from the study is then used to apply to other cases and contexts. Qualitative case study methods often involve several in-depth interviews over a period of time with each case. Interviews explore the unique aspects of the case in great detail, more so than would be typical for a phenomenological interview. Implications of a case study approach for qualitative data collection and analysis are several. First, participants and/or cases, by definition, should be selected for their unique properties. Because it is the case‘s special attributes that are of interest, sample sizes are generally small, usually one to several Research I Page 32  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. cases. Inquiry in these types of studies focuses largely on their defining case features and the differences they exhibit from other individuals/events in the larger population. The overall idea is to tease out what makes them so different and why. Often, knowledge gained from case studies is applied to a larger population. A poignant case study example can be found in the education literature, in which the educational experience of a gifted African American boy living in an impoverished community is described. Combining interviews with the young boy, a university researcher, and a classroom teacher, the authors document the boy‘s struggles within the educational system and beyond. As a result of the study, the authors provide recommendations for identifying and addressing the educational needs of gifted children in impoverished communities. 2.6 Genealogical Methods The genealogical method is a well-established procedure in ethnography. It was initiated by early ethnographers to identify all-important links of kinship determined by marriage and descent. Genealogy or kinship commonly plays a crucial role in the structure of non-industrial societies, determining both social relations and group relationship to the past. Marriage, for example, is frequently pivotal in determining military alliances between villages, clans or ethnic groups. In the field of epistemology the term has come to be used, by extension, to characterize the philosophical method employed by such writers as Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel Foucault. Chapter Three: Data Documentation and Management 3.1. Organizing and Storing Your Data Because they capture the thoughts and experiences of individual people, every set of qualitative data collected (from every participant observation event, interview, and focus group) is distinct. In addition, individual researchers inevitably have differences in style that affect how data are managed in the field, and different locations have unique logistical constraints. Thus, systematically comparing and analyzing qualitative data in raw form is challenging. Organizing data in a rigorous, standardized way is essential to their security and to the validity of the study results, however. Consistency is important for every study but is especially crucial for large, team-based projects involving extensive amounts of data located in multiple sites. Research I Page 33  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Your study‘s local principal investigator or data manager will set up a data management system that is specific to your site. This module suggests a general method for the complex task of systematically managing qualitative data, covering the following topics: Converting Raw Data to Computer Files Organizing Data Storage Suggested Reading Data Archiving Steps Data Management Checklist For a specific study, the procedures outlined in this module may be followed exactly or adapted, as the principal investigator or data manager sees fit. Converting Raw Data to Computer Files What do we do with audio recordings? In-depth interviews and focus groups are tape-recorded whenever possible. Preparing these recorded data for analysis requires transcribing all tapes and typing the transcriptions into computer files. Before transcription, the tabs on the tapes should be punched to prevent them from being recorded over. Next, backup copies of the tapes should be made. The backup copies should be securely stored in a separate location from the original tapes. What happens to the handwritten field notes? Participant observers, focus group facilitators, and interviewers take handwritten notes to document a wide range of information, including:  casual and structured observations  verbatim quotes  paraphrases of participant responses  interview and focus group backup documentation  the researcher‘s questions  questions, conclusions, and observations discussed during the staff debriefing sessions These notes are written on standardized forms, the interview or focus group question guide, or field notebooks, according to the situation. For focus groups and interviews, after transcribing all relevant recordings, the transcriptionist types up the interviewer‘s or focus group moderator‘s corresponding handwritten field notes. Research I Page 34  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. These typed field notes could either be appended to the transcript within the same file or kept in a separate file (the principal investigator or data manager would make this decision). Whatever the case, the typed field notes provide contextual information that could enhance the researchers‘ understanding of the transcript and therefore need to be easily identifiable as part of the same data collection event. Expanded notes from each participant observation event should be typed as separate computer files. When should we begin typing the data? Transcription of recordings and typing of field notes should begin as soon as possible after the data collection event. Tapes of interviews and focus groups should be processed as soon as they are archived, rather than allowed to accumulate. Field notes should be typed as soon as the data collector has expanded them (if they are not typed while they are being expanded). What does transcription involve? To transcribe an audio recording, the transcriptionist listens to the tape and simultaneously writes down or types everything that is said on the tape. Nonverbal sounds (such as laughter, sirens, someone knocking on the door) are also often noted on the transcript. Transcription is performed by either the data collectors themselves or other staff hired specifically as typists or transcriptionists. When the transcriptionist is not the person who collected the recorded data, the interviewer or focus group moderator who did collect it should review completed transcripts for accuracy. Transcripts may also need to be translated into the language(s) of the organization sponsoring the study. Does it matter what format is used for transcription? Whether one person or many staff members are involved in transcription, it is highly recommended that everyone involved in a given study use a common format for transcribing all recordings. That is, there should be standard conventions for identifying the researcher and individual participants throughout the transcript. There should also be a uniform way of presenting information on the location, date, and type of data collection event. These conventions should be detailed in a project-specific transcription protocol which precisely outlines procedures and formats for transcribing recorded data. The transcription protocol you develop for your own study should similarly reflect any formatting or other requirements of the software that you will use. Whether the research team or some other entity is in charge of data analysis, it is important to determine such requirements before even the first transcription is done. Doing so will save much work later. If you find that the software does not require any specific format, it is still important for you to design a systematic and consistent transcription protocol. Research I Page 35  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. What do we name the computer files? You should name the computer file for each interview and focus group transcript according to a standard convention specified in the transcription protocol. As previously noted, such conventions are project-specific. To avoid confusion, consider using the archival number as the computer file name for the transcript. As with the archival number, the file name should indicate the site name, method of data collection, participant category, and sequential number. What other information should we include in the computer files? Each transcript or set of notes should begin with a standard header that indicates the archival number, site, data collector‘s name(s), date of data collection, data collection method, transcriber, translator, typist, and date of computer entry. Organizing Data Storage Who organizes the data? The site coordinator or principal investigator typically assigns a member of the research team or other staff member to be the data manager. This person is in charge of creating a system of organizing and archiving (that is, storing) the data, and for ensuring that all staff members follow these procedures for the duration of the study. This helps ensure the security and integrity of the data. It is also a good idea to have one person who always knows where all data are located. How should the data be organized? It is important that each project have a set of procedures that are appropriate for the site and that make sense to the research team. If a project has multiple sites, one system should be used in all sites to avoid confusion. What steps should we take before data collection? A strategy that works well for keeping data organized, and which should be implemented even before data are collected, is to create packets of all necessary forms for each kind of event using large, heavy-duty envelopes, sometimes called ―archival envelopes.‖ Then, when you are ready to do the data collection – for example, a focus group – you can go to the study office and get a focus group envelope containing the focus group guide, note-taker form, informed consent forms, debriefing form, reimbursement form, and all other materials you will need. At that time, the data manager should assign an archival number to the data collection event. This strategy enables researchers to label all materials with the appropriate archival number before the event. Where should we put the data after collection? Research I Page 36  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Centralizing data, or keeping them all together in one place, is a key element of managing data in an organized and systematic fashion. All physical data (notes, tape recordings, transcripts, etc.) should be kept in a locked filing cabinet or equally secure location. We recommend keeping all documents related to a given data collection event in a secure location at each field site, in one large, heavy-duty archival envelope per event with an archival information sheet. The envelope‘s contents will include typed transcripts, expanded field notes, debriefing notes, handwritten versions of the notes, and possibly cassette tapes. The data manager may also decide to store the original tapes in the envelope, but backup copies of tapes should be stored separately (or vice versa). Eventually, both copies of the tapes will be destroyed for reasons of confidentiality. Once you are instructed by the project manager or coordinator to destroy the tapes, it will be necessary to put documentation of this in the archival envelope. Copies of all electronic files should be sent to the sponsoring organization and also maintained at the field site. What are an archival number and archival log? All data, both electronic and paper, are organized and identified according to archival numbers – numbers assigned in sequential order to each data collection event. The archival number is used to label all documentation related to a particular data collection event. The archival log is the list of sequential numbers assigned to each data collection event and is used to track data. 3.2. Ethnographic and Anthropological Narration and Interpretation If we will admit that the ethnographic method is the main feature of anthropological studies, then we need to see what it consists of. This is because, as Tim Ingold notes, the specific feature of anthropology is not easy to define: ―Anthropologists study people. They do not study stars, rocks, plants or the weather. But whilst we may have little difficulty in separating out the field of anthropological inquiry from those of astronomy, geology, botany or meteorology, it is not so obvious how – if at all – anthropology may be distinguished from the many other branches of the human sciences, all of which could claim to be studying people in one way or another.‖ Psychology studies the human mind, history deals with its past actions, the sociology with the institutions of human society, and so on, so that specific of anthropology is not easy to identify among these other disciplines. Ethnographic study of human societies, large and small, is what constitutes the specific of anthropology in the context of humanities. In the early anthropological studies, the object of Research I Page 37  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. interest were the so-called ―primitive‖, relatively small communities outside the Western world, where the social institutions were considered to be relatively less complex – an idea which then turned out to be just an illusion – and relations between their members are almost entirely from person to person. Research I Page 38  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. Chapter Four: Ethical issues In Anthropological Research Methods 4.1 Research Ethics Research ethics deals primarily with the interaction between researchers and the people they study. Professional ethics deals with additional issues such as collaborative relationships among researchers, mentoring relationships, intellectual property, fabrication of data, and plagiarism, among others. While we do not explicitly discuss professional ethics here, they are obviously as important for qualitative research as for any other endeavor. Most professional organizations, such as the American Anthropological Association, the Society for Applied Anthropology, the American Sociological Association, and the American Public Health Association, have developed broad statements of professional ethics that are easily accessible via the Internet. The ethics of research is an important topic because it defines what is and is not permissible to do when conducting research. Researchers have a professional and moral obligation to act ethically. Governments, professional organizations, universities and funding agencies have established ethical guidelines and codes of conduct for researchers to follow. A research project that is designed in an ethical manner maximizes benefits to both the scientists and study participants, respects participants‘ rights, and minimizes the risks to participants. Both biomedical and social scientists collect data on people. Sometimes we simply collect data by asking people questions or observing behaviors. 4.2 Ethical considerations in ethnography The ethics of social research is about creating a mutually respectful, win win relationship in which participants are pleased to respond candidly, valid results are obtained, and the community considers the conclusions constructive. Social research is a dynamic process that often involves an intrusion into people's lives and therefore largely depends on the establishment of a successful relationship between the researcher and respondent(s). Central to this relationship is ethical responsibility, integral to the research topic and to research design and planning. Since the scope of social research i ncorporates many methodological approaches, however, a single set of ethical rules or prescriptions is not Research I Page 39  Dire Dawa University, Qualitative Research Method Prepared by Amanuel M. possible or helpful. Indeed, consensus is lacking amongst social researchers as to what actually constitutes an ethical issue. This ambiguity has precluded the emergence of a clear typology or set of classifying characteristics by which t o describe and contrast particular studies. This is not however to undermine the importance of ethics to the social researcher. Ethical responsibility is essential at all stages of the research process, from the design of a study, including how participants are recruited, to how they are treated through the course of these procedures, and finally to the consequences of their participation. Despite the ambiguities surrounding the application of ethics in the social research context, the literature consistently does highlight a number of key considerations that