Loughborough: Past, Present and Future
Qualitative research is used primarily as an exploratory research technique; with the aim to gain a deeper understanding of the subject, compared to the denotative exploration that the quantitative research method offers. This idea stems from Atkinson and Silverman’s construction of the qualitative interview technique, which argues that more personally familiar discussions can take place (Atkinson, 1997) resulting in textual data, thus relating directly to my research which aims to understand the investment in Loughborough University from a first year student. Qualitative research also typifies that of accessing a variety of interactions within their natural context in order to comprehend a realistic and interpretivist approach through the course of the research which can later be transferred to other potential contexts. This is evident due to the focus of qualitative research being on clarifications and debate building surrounding diverse phenomenology, following on from Pawson’s research concluding that qualitative interviews are a way of “getting to grips with the way the social world is put together” (Pawson, 1989). Qualitative research predominately takes the form of interviews which can be structured, un-structured and semi-structured.
Qualitative interviews are the greatest form of obtaining interpretivist data due to the direct approach of data collection which can be carried out either face-to-face, over the phone, or online. Despite this fact, there are many limitations to the interview method, exemplified through the lack of generalisability. However, as Bryman discussed that “it is the quality of the theoretical inferences that are made out of qualitative data that is crucial to the assessment of generalization” (Bryman A. , 2001), arguing that it is not the method that influences generalizability, but instead the conclusions drawn from the research. Similarly, when constructing an interview, it is key to take into consideration the setting, question style and method of recording the data, in order to increase the validity and reliability of the findings. For example, my reasoning for setting my research in a controlled setting enables the participant to speak freely without any intervening factors which may influence the participant to respond in a particular way. Moreover, choosing this setting relates to the ethical consideration of anonymity, enabling the participant to feel at ease when revealing personal thoughts and opinions whilst maintaining privacy. Correspondingly, the structure of the interviews alters depending on the aim of the study. This is exemplified through structured interviews, such as surveys, which give the participants no room for elaboration other than the definitive pre-set structure due to the closed-questions that are asked. These questions are standardized meaning that the interviewer cannot deviate from the interview schedule by probing further based the answers received. Due to the fixed set of closed questions, the records produced can be easily quantified which increases the reliability of the data because the investigation can be easily replicated and can be given to a large sample increasing the generalizability of the findings. However, due to this strict structure, structured interviews are not flexible connoting that the participants’ responses may lack detail and may not be representative of their real thoughts and feelings, thus reducing the validity of the findings and therefore questioning the reliability of the research collectively. As Malseed et al (Malseed, ‘Strawmen’: Sociology, 1987) discussed that if the researcher’s aim was to follow an interpretivist approach then the best suited assembly would be an unstructured approach. This is evident due to the vast amount of rich data obtained, contrastively, this method cannot be replicated reducing the reliability of the findings enabling superfluous data to be obtained.
With relation to my research, I did not feel it necessary to use a structured interview due to the aim of my research being to understand, in depth, the participant’s feelings towards the university lifestyle. This is emphasised through my hypothesis arguing that the university’s reputation is the largest mediating factor when choosing and representing yourself as a Loughborough university student. This topic could not be accessed if the question form used was structured due to the fact that as a researcher I could not anticipate my participant’s intimate thoughts and feelings, therefore I would not have been able to structure questions which would give me in-depth and intimate responses. Furthermore, my sample size consisted of solely one participant which required the research to be focussed on flexible and sensitive to social context. It is heavily debated that in order to collect rich data which can be generalized to the surrounding population, a large sample size must be apparent. However, one interview enables the researcher to gain a deeper and greater understanding of the subject at hand. This idea is emphasised by Passerini and Sandino who argue that “single qualitative interviews can produce rich accounts of subjectivity” (Baker, 2001). Although this requirement is offered by unstructured interviews due to the use of open questions being adapted based on the respondents’ answers, certain skills may be needed for the interviewer, alternatively, the interview may deviate too far from the subject of the enquiry resulting in the findings being anomalous. Therefore, with a semi-structured interview it is easy to bring the participant back to the topic by having a set of probing questions.
By definition, the semi-structured interview method is a qualitative technique used in order to explore specific themes and ideas surrounding the pre-determined set of open questions as prepared by the interviewer. With the purpose of such method to gain a deeper understanding of the subject at hand by allowing the participant to answer the set of questions freely, as a result, the interviewer can also probe the interview subject by responding directly to what they have said, taking the form of conversations (Kvale, 2007). This notion is exemplified through my research which had the aim to discover the participant’s thoughts and feelings towards Loughborough university based on their past, present and future experiences of the university lifestyle so far. The interview technique is predominately recorded then transcribed and analysed, as Wakeman discussed that this may not be the most ethically sound and representative method, as he discovered that counter control may occur due to his finding that “the use of a recording device can drive research in a particular direction” (Wakeman, 2013).
Although qualitative research is judged in the same way as the quantitative method, analysing qualitative data can be divided into two main aspects: analytical induction and the grounded theory. With reference to analytical induction, as Gibbs, G discusses that this qualitative analysis is formed from explanation building and confirmation of causal relationships between mediating factors (Gibbs, G and University of Huddersfield, 2010). This form of analysis was used in analysing the collected data from my research, explicitly due to the fact that my hypothesis was confirmed, removing possibilities of any deviant cases. When analysing my findings, I coded my transcript in order to collate some recurring themes used to describe the same phenomenon, for example, I found that my participant was frequently referencing sport, stance on the league tables and the option of a placement year. This references Glaser’s definition of the grounded theory which discusses how the grounded theory is the discovery of emerging patterns in data. Although coding was useful to familiarise myself with the data recorded and draw some immediate conclusions, it became clear that fragmentation occurred (Bryman, 2001) reducing the external reliability of the outcomes. Similarly, the findings of this research method are subject to subjectivity as the findings rely solely on what researchers consider to be important, therefore, transparency is lacking heavily. I used analytical induction rather than the grounded theory due to the fact that I had a preconceived hypothesis in mind when constructing my interview, whereas, as Strauss and Corbin argue that the “grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of the phenomena it represents” (Strauss, 2008). This founded notion could not have been used when analysing my data due to the sample size being only one participant, moreover reinforcing the debated notion that this method does not have a profound impact outside academia, further reducing the external reliability. On the other hand, there are many alternative methods of analysis, for example with relation to my investigation, narrative analysis could be used due to the personal and reflective nature of some of the questions asked which encouraged the participant to think about their past and previous knowledge of Loughborough University.
Bibliography
Atkinson, P. a. (1997). ‘Kundera’s immortality: the interview society and the invention of self’ (Qualitative Enquiry, 3.3 ed.). London: Sage.
Baker, S. .. (2001). How many qualitative interviews are enough? National Centre for research methods review paper, 6.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, G and University of Huddersfield. (2010, July 01). Procedural analysis or structured approach. Analytical induction.
Kvale. (2007). Doing Interviews. L.A. London: Sage Publications
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage Publications.
Malseed, J. (1987). ‘Strawmen’: Sociology. Sage.
Pawson, R. (1989). A Measurefor Measures: A Manifestofor Empirical: Sociology. London: Routledge.
Strauss, A. a. (2008). Basics of Qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for developing grounded theory (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wakeman. (2013).