By Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler and Dana C. Leighton, adapted by Marc Chao and Muhamad Alif Bin Ibrahim

While most psychological research is quantitative, focusing on numerical data, statistical analysis, and broad generalisations, there is an equally important approach known as qualitative research. This method originated in anthropology and sociology but is now widely used in psychology to gain deeper insight into human experiences.

Quantitative researchers typically start with a specific research question or hypothesis, gather numerical data from a large group of participants, and use statistical techniques to draw conclusions that can be generalised to a broader population. In contrast, qualitative researchers begin with a broader research question, collect large amounts of detailed, non-numerical data from a smaller group of participants, or other types of naturalistic data, such as observations, photographs, and policy documents. Qualitative researchers analyse them using a variety of analytical strategies such as thematic analysis, grounded theory, critical discourse analysis, or interpretative phenomenological analysis. Their goal is less about drawing universal conclusions and more about gaining a deeper understanding of participants’ individual experiences and socio-cultural contexts.

For example, in a study by Per Lindqvist and colleagues (2008), researchers aimed to understand how families of teenage suicide victims cope with their loss. Instead of asking a precise question like, “What percentage of family members join support groups?”, they focused on capturing the range of emotional experiences these families faced.

To gather their data, the researchers conducted unstructured interviews with families of 10 teenage suicide victims in rural Sweden. These interviews began with an open-ended request for participants to share their thoughts about their loved one and ended with an invitation to add anything else they felt was important.

One significant theme that emerged was that even when families’ daily lives returned to a sense of “normalcy”, they continued to struggle with the unanswered question of why the suicide happened. This emotional struggle was particularly intense in cases where the suicide was unexpected.

The Purpose of Qualitative Research

Quantitative research excels at answering specific research questions with precision and drawing general conclusions about human behaviour. For instance, it has been shown that people tend to obey authority figures and that female undergraduate students are not significantly more talkative than male students. However, while quantitative research is powerful for answering clear, predefined questions, it falls short in generating new and intriguing research questions, providing detailed descriptions of behaviour in specific contexts, and capturing the personal experience of being part of a particular group or situation.

This is where qualitative research shines. It is especially valuable for generating fresh research questions and hypotheses that can later be tested quantitatively. For example, the study by Lindqvist and colleagues hinted at a potential relationship between how unexpected a suicide is and how deeply families struggle to understand the reasons behind it. This insight emerged directly from listening to families’ stories in an open-ended interview setting. Without these intimate conversations, such a question might never have been considered.

Qualitative research also excels at creating rich, detailed descriptions of human behaviour in real-world settings. Researchers often refer to this level of detail as “thick description” (Geertz, 1973). Unlike quantitative studies, qualitative research can capture the “lived experience” of participants. In Lindqvist’s study, families frequently offered to show the interviewer their loved one’s bedroom or the site of the suicide. This small yet powerful detail highlighted the emotional significance of these spaces, a discovery unlikely to emerge from a quantitative survey. Some of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research are provided in Table 9.5.1.

Data Collection and Analysis in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research employs a diverse range of data collection methods, including naturalistic observation, participant observation, archival data analysis, and artwork analysis, among others. However, one of the most common methods in psychology is conducting interviews.

Interviews in qualitative research can vary in structure:

• Unstructured interviews involve open-ended prompts or general questions, allowing participants to guide the conversation.
• Structured interviews follow a strict script, with little room for deviation.
• Semi-structured interviews fall between these two approaches. Researchers prepare a set of key questions but have the flexibility to ask follow-up questions based on participants’ responses.

Semi-structured interviews are widely used because they strike a balance between consistency and adaptability. These interviews are often lengthy and detailed, but are usually conducted with a small group of participants. For example, in Lindqvist and colleagues’ study on families of suicide victims, the researchers used unstructured interviews to allow participants to share their experiences at their own pace. This approach ensured that families had control over how much they disclosed about such a sensitive topic. However, conducting interviews can be time-consuming, and interviewers must possess good listening and probing skills to ensure that rich, detailed insights are gathered from participants.

Another popular qualitative method is the use of focus groups. Focus groups are typically used to explore community norms, cultural values, and group opinions. In focus groups, a small group of people discusses a specific topic or issue, usually guided by a facilitator. This group dynamic can encourage richer discussions and reveal insights that might not emerge in one-on-one interviews. Focus groups are widely used in business and industry to understand consumer preferences and behaviours. However, researchers must remain aware of group dynamics within focus groups that can influence the data. For example:

• participants may give socially desirable answers to be liked or accepted by others
• dominant personalities, such as highly extraverted participants, might control the discussion, overshadowing quieter group members.

Data Analysis in Qualitative Research

While qualitative and quantitative research differ in various ways, like how data are collected or the specificity of the research question, the most significant difference lies in how the data are analysed. To illustrate this, imagine a research team conducting unstructured interviews with individuals recovering from alcohol use disorder. Their goal is to understand the role of religious faith in recovery. Initially, this sounds like qualitative research. However, if the team later codes the data based on how frequently participants mention God or a “higher power” and then uses statistical analysis to link these mentions to recovery success, the study shifts into the quantitative research category. This example highlights how data are analysed defines whether research is qualitative or quantitative, rather than how it was collected.

Thematic Analysis

Just as there are many ways to collect qualitative data (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations), there are also many ways to analyse it. One widely used qualitative analytical method in Psychology is Thematic Analysis. Broadly, Thematic Analysis is used to identify, analyse and report themes within a qualitative dataset. However, there are many varying approaches in Thematic Analysis that differ in the analytical procedures as well as underlying research values or philosophy. Some commonly used approaches include Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2008, 2021), Applied Thematic Analysis (Guest et al., 2011), and Framework Analysis (Ritchie et al., 2014). The analysis of data using Thematic Analysis typically goes through four main stages:

1. Familiarising with the qualitative dataset: This initial step entails researchers reading and re-reading the data (e.g., transcripts, field notes) to become deeply familiar with participants’ experiences and perspectives.
2. Identifying Repeated Ideas: Researchers look for patterns or recurring ideas within the data through a systematic coding process.
3. Organising Ideas into Themes: These repeated ideas are grouped iteratively into broader, meaningful themes or categories.
4. Creating a Theoretical Narrative: The final step is crafting an interpretation of the data, often supported by direct participant quotes to bring the analysis to life.

Grounded Theory in Practice

Another popular qualitative research methodology is Grounded Theory, which was first developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). This approach does not start with a pre-existing theory. Instead, this methodology aims to develop an explanatory theory of psychological or social processes that is “grounded in” the data.  Consider a study by Laura Abrams and Laura Curran (2009), which explored the experiences of postpartum depression among low-income mothers. They conducted unstructured interviews with 19 participants and identified five major themes from the data, each made up of smaller, repeating ideas. For instance:

In their findings in Table 9.5.2, Abrams and Curran emphasised that the participants’ postpartum symptoms were not just abstract “affective disorders”. Instead, their symptoms were deeply tied to the daily struggles of raising children alone, often in challenging and unstable circumstances.

A participant codenamed “Destiny” shared this perspective:

Well, just recently my apartment was broken into and the fact that his Medicaid for some reason was cancelled so a lot of things was happening within the last two weeks all at one time. So that in itself I don’t want to say almost drove me mad but it put me in a funk.…Like I really was depressed.

This example illustrates how Grounded Theory enables researchers to develop a rich, nuanced understanding of participants’ experiences, capturing both their struggles and the contexts that shape them.

The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate

Quantitative and qualitative research approaches in psychology and related fields have often been viewed as opposing methods. Each has its strengths and limitations, which have led to ongoing debates about their value and effectiveness.

Some quantitative researchers argue that qualitative methods lack objectivity and are hard to evaluate in terms of reliability and validity. They also point out that qualitative findings are often difficult to generalise to broader populations or other contexts. On the other hand, some qualitative researchers criticise quantitative methods for oversimplifying the richness of human behaviour and focusing only on easily measurable variables.

However, both sides are aware of these criticisms. Qualitative researchers have developed frameworks to address concerns about objectivity, reliability, validity, and generalisability (though these frameworks are beyond our current scope). Similarly, quantitative researchers recognise that human behaviour cannot always be reduced to a few variables and statistical relationships. For them, simplification is a strategic tool for uncovering general principles of behaviour rather than a belief that behaviour itself is simple.

A Middle Ground: Mixed-Methods Research

Today, many researchers agree that quantitative and qualitative approaches can complement each other. This integrated approach is known as mixed-methods research (Todd et al., 2004). In fact, studies like those conducted by Lindqvist et al. and Abrams & Curran combined both approaches effectively.

Two Common Mixed-Methods Approaches

Hypothesis Generation and Testing:

• Qualitative research can generate hypotheses by exploring complex behaviours, experiences, or patterns in small samples.
• Quantitative research can then test those hypotheses using larger, more controlled samples.
• For example, if a qualitative study suggests that families struggle more with unresolved questions after an unexpected suicide, a quantitative study could measure this relationship in a larger sample to confirm or refine the hypothesis.

Triangulation:

• This approach uses both qualitative and quantitative methods simultaneously to study the same question from different angles.
• If both methods produce similar results, they reinforce and enrich each other.
• If the results diverge, it raises an interesting follow-up question: Why did they differ, and how can this be explained?

An Example of Mixed-Methods Research

A study by Trenor et al. (2008) investigated the experiences of female engineering students at a university. In the first phase, students completed a quantitative survey where they rated perceptions such as their sense of belonging. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences across ethnic groups in their ratings. At first glance, this result could suggest that ethnicity does not influence students’ sense of belonging.

However, in the second phase, researchers conducted qualitative interviews with the same students. During these interviews, many minority students reported that cultural diversity on campus enhanced their sense of belonging. Without the qualitative insights, the quantitative results might have been misinterpreted, leading to an incomplete understanding of the data.

This example demonstrates how quantitative and qualitative methods complement each other, offering a more complete picture of human behaviour. While qualitative research excels at identifying patterns, behaviours, and unique experiences, quantitative research is better suited for testing hypotheses, identifying statistical relationships, and uncovering broader trends.

Some researchers suggest that qualitative research helps identify phenomena, while quantitative research helps explain mechanisms. However, Bryman (2016) argues that we should move past this artificial divide and recognise that both approaches are valuable tools for investigating complex questions about human behaviour.

References

Abrams, L. S., & Curran, L. (2009). “And you’re telling me not to stress?” A grounded theory study of postpartum depression symptoms among low-income mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/036168430903300309

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed). Oxford University Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & ProQuest. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

Todd, Z. (2004). Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203645727

Trenor, J.M., Yu, S.L., Waight, C.L., Zerda, K.S. and Sha, T.-L. (2008). The relations of ethnicity to female engineering students’ educational experiences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning environment. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, (449-465). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00992.x