Qualitative

• In a nutshell

  Qualitative research methods are favoured by interpretivists because they provide deep, subjective and meaningful insights into social behaviour. Qualitative research methods include unstructured interviews, participant observations and documents.
• UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW


  The interpretivist-favoured method of unstructured interviews mainly ask open-ended questions that produce qualitative data rich in meaning. There is a strong relationship built between the interviewer and the interviewee, which means the data is more likely to be valid.
• UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW ADVANTAGES

  Rapport: the informality allows the interviewer to develop a relationship with the interviewee.​

  Flexibility - the interviewer is not restricted to a fixed set of questions.​Valid - they are flexible, due to how the conversation is not constrained by fixed questions. People can therefore be more truthful.
• UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW DISADVANTAGES 1

  Practical - Time-worthy - due to how unstructured interviews are typically longer, they consume more time and have a smaller research sample.

  ​

  Practical - it is cost-worthy to train interviewers in sensitivity.
• UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW DISADVANTAGES 2


  Un-representative - due to how there is a small research sample, data obtained is not representative of the wider population.

  ​

  Not reliable - due to how the questions are open, they cannot be easily repeated by another researcher. Additionally, the respondent's ability to respond in the way they wish makes it impossible to clarify their responses.
• Participant Observation

  The researcher joins in the activities of the group they are researching.
• Participant Observation ADVANTAGES

  Valid- groups are observed in a natural and authentic setting, therefore the data is more likely to be a true account of the group’s behaviour.

  ​

  Valid - data generated is richly detailed and offers insight into social behaviour.

  ​
• Participant Observation DISADVANTAGES

  Unreliable - being open-ended and subjective research, there is no fixed procedure or standardised system of measurement and cannot be replicated.

  ​

  Unrepresentative - most participant observations investigate small-scale groups that are not representative of the wider population.

  ​

  Not valid - the Hawthorne effect, due to how the observer is likely to affect the group's behaviour.
• Participant Observation DISADVANTAGES 2

  Not valid - the researcher is at risk of ‘going native’, meaning the researcher over-identifies with the group.

  ​

  Ethical issues - it is difficult to ensure to the anonymity of participants.

  ​

  Practical issues - there are issues with getting into the group, staying in the group and/or leaving the group.
• PERSONAL DOCUMENTS 


  These can take the form of diaries, memoirs, autobiographies and letters.
• PERSONAL DOCUMENTS ADVANTAGES

  Valid - Written for personal purposes so will have a high degree of validity and provide an in-depth and genuine insight into people's attitudes.

  ​

  Practical - They are cheap and save researcher's time.

  ​

  Illuminates many areas of social life.

  ​

  Can be used to confirm or question other interpretations and accounts.
• PERSONAL DOCUMENTS DISADVANTAGES


  Some groups are unlikely to produce personal documents such as letters and diaries and so their views aren't represented while those with time and literacy skills may be over-represented.

  ​

  Personal documents such as letters are written with an audience in mind and may affect what is being recorded. Personal bias is likely to be present.
• HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS ADVANTAGES


  They allow comparisons over time (for example birth, death and marriage rates).

  ​

  They are useful when assessing the outcomes of various social policies (Eg. raising the school leaving age).
• HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS DISADVANTAGES

  Un-representative - some documents may have been lost or destroyed.​

  The validity of the documents are open to question as they may have been written selectively.​

  The authenticity of a document is open to question as it might not have been written by the person it is attributed to, therefore undermining its reliability.