QUALITATIVE

• 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 INTERVIEWS

  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 INTS


  • 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 INTS 


  • 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.​
  • 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.
• (+) PARTICIANT OBS 


  • 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 generate is richly detailed and offers insight into social behaviour.
• (-) PARTICIPANT OBS 


  • Unreliable - being open-ended and subjective research, there is no fixed procedure or standardised system of measurement and cannot be replicated.​
  • Unrepresentative
  • Not valid - the Hawthorne effect
  • Not valid - the researcher is at risk of ‘going native’, meaning the researcher over-identifies with the group.​
  • Ethical issues
  • 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 DOC 


  • 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 


  • 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 DOC 


  • 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 DOC 


  • 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.