According to Benohel, a qualitative research could be defined as “Modes of systematic enquiry concerned with understanding human beings and the nature of their transactions with themselves and their surroundings” (1985).
Building on Benohel’s definition, a qualitative research is an exploratory study that describes aspects of a phenomenon to answer questions about the empirical world mainly the “how” and the “why” of a particular phenomenon, or a behavior and to understand why it operates that way.
Similarly, according to Gray D., qualitative research is “A method to answer questions about or explain a phenomenon of interest, a social process, or a culture by collecting and analyzing narrative data from the perspective of the participant” (2017). Qualitative research then, develops theory inductively, not quantifying or counting a particular phenomenon but studying the empirical world from the perspective of the subject and not the researcher (Carr Linda 1994).
Qualitative research is rooted in the disciplines of history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and psychology (Cormack 1991; Renz S. 2018), its roots in history are also one of its weaknesses because it does not tie to the physical science domain (Carr Linda 1994).
Our first step towards defining qualitative communication research was to analyze what each term stands for individually. An analysis of Communication on the Merriam-Webster, business dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries allow us to group the definitions the following way:
First, a process of imparting or exchanging information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium or through systems, symbols, or behavior.
Second, the successful conveying or sharing of information (note that the key word here is successful)
Third, it is a two-way process of reaching mutual understanding in which participants exchange (encode-decode) information, news, ideas and share and create new meanings.
The combinability of the term communication allows for an understanding of it as defined by Luis Allen, communication is then defined as “a bridge of meaning. It involves a systematic and continuous process of telling, listening and understanding.” It is an umbrella term for the successful exchange of meanings using different mediums or creating new ones.
Research on the other hand, on a broader approach to term, means the formal or informal gathering of data that aims to advance knowledge.
But the federal regulations define research as a systematic investigation including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. A “systematic investigation” on the other hand is defined by the federal regulations as an activity that involves a prospective plan that incorporates data collection, either quantitative or qualitative, and data analysis to answer a question.
Gathering information is more specific when it comes to researchers, as the researcher sets to test a hypothesis or answer a research question through a formal protocol with an objective and a set of procedures that allows for a conclusion to be drawn, it is conducted according to the researcher’s intention, purpose, and the paradigm they’re operating from within. (Institutional Review Board for Social Behavioral Sciences & Human Subjects Office). A research design provides a framework for the collection and analysis of data, while methodology is part of the overall epistemological approach that was adopted by the study (Gray, 2003).
The combination of our definitions allows for Qualitative Communication Research to be defined as research that aims to understand the subjective lived experiences of the subjects of their study, bringing an understanding of how people communicate.
According to Rawlin K., qualitative research as a covering term for scholarship that values systematic study, conducted in natural settings, of the empirical features and lived experience of situated experiences (2012).
Qualitative communication research then tries to understand the exchange of information by suspects who are engaged in the act of communication through collecting and gathering data to explain that exchange by observing and reporting as the researcher gets to decide what is significant in their study. According to Lindolf T. & Taylor B., researchers doing qualitative communication research get to practice “participation, reflection, description, and interpretation” (2011).
Qualitative research is sometimes defined as opposed to quantitative research. Conceptually, qualitative research is concerned with understanding human behavior from the informant’s reality and assumes a dynamic and negotiated reality while the quantitative research is concerned with discovering facts about a social phenomenon and assumes a fixed measurable reality. Methodologically, in a qualitative research data are collected through participant observation and interviews, analyzed by themes from descriptions by informants and data is reported in the languages of the informant while in quantitative research data is collected through measuring thing, analyzed through numerical comparisons and statistical inferences and reported through statistical analyses. (adapted from Minchiello et al. 1990, pg5)
Quantitative research is then the research in which we can quantify or count the communication phenomena as it involves collecting and analyzing numerical data. It is an objective technique for describing the manifest content of communication often deductive while having a pre-determined and standard process that often starts with a hypothesis. According to Meha, “the quantitative methods used (in nursing research) produced legitimate scientific answers” (1982) as the investigator “maintains a detached, objective view in order to understand the facts” (Duffy 1986) as the use of some quantitative research methods might not require any contact with the subjects at all. It is a formal, objective and systematic process used to quantify data and measure a phenomenon.
While defining qualitative and quantitative research we usually look at their uses and purposes while the difference between the two approaches lie in their roots, and the difference between quality and quantity. Qualitative research analyzes problems through analyzing interviews, discussions and observations without generally focusing on the quantity. But when words are quantified to describe a phenomenon it is a quantitative research. Qualitative research tries to answer the "how" and "why" questions, while quantitative research deals for the "how much and how many" questions.
The difference between the two approaches lies in sampling, methodology and data.
Sampling procedures for each methodology are as different as they are complex, and both research approaches require a sample to be identified that can represent larger populations or objects (Carr L.).
Quantitative approach aims to establish a general law through statistical sampling, therefore, the researcher randomly selects the sample to be studied and is randomly assigned to a study group, the researcher maintains a detached view to understand the facts (Duffy 1985).
Qualitative research, on the other hand, aims to understand the social reality of a particular group, therefore the sampling requires a small selective sample because of the in-depth nature and analysis of the data that is required (Cormack 1991).
The research is usually involved in the research and gathering of data, therefore, the predisposition of the researcher can affect the research but it can be argued that this first interaction of the researcher as an interactive relationship could be the strength of this approach as the investigator "obtains the first-hand experience and valuable meaningful data as the researcher and the subject get to spend more time together the data is more likely to be honest, and valid" (Duffy, 1986 & Bryman 1988).
Methodology is also different between the two approaches. “qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials, such as the case study, description of personal experiences, life stories, interviews, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts, all to describe moments and meanings in individuals’ lives” (Renz S. 2018).
According to Denzin, the qualitative approach includes methods such as grounded theory and ethnographic research (1978). The methods used to gather data in a qualitative study allows diving deeper in the study, sometimes even beyond what the research has included in the research design and allows the researcher to get an insider view. The most used methodology in qualitative research is content analysis its purpose “is to discover the underlying meaning of text through the quantification of the meaning of spoken or written language” (Renz 2018).
Experiments, scales and “yes” or “no” questions are usually used in a quantitative research that allows the researcher to find relationships between the variables. This approach is usually praised for its objectivity as there is no contact between the investigator and the subject and regards human beings as merely reacting to the environment and situations they are in (Cormack 1991).
The data produced by qualitative research is usually called “soft” data and “hard” when generated by quantitative analysis. Some describe the data generated by qualitative analysis as inadequate to generate changes on the contrary to the quantitative analysis. According to Comer “the labels “hard” and “soft” data suggests in itself that analysis by numbers is of a superior quality to analysis by words” (1991). Which take me to my next point, the reliability and the validity of this data.
According to Carr, “Quantitative research is considered to be more reliable than qualitative investigation,” qualitative research is often criticized for being biased because of the researcher’s involvement in the study. “Qualitative researchers aim to design and incorporate methodological strategies to ensure the ‘trustworthiness’ of the findings” while quantitative researchers use statistical methods to prove the validity of their research (Noble H., Smith J, 2015). When it comes to validity, the issue is reversed. It is used to refer to whether the findings of a study are true and certain. But the more controlled the quantitative study the more difficult it is to prove that the situation happened in real life. But for a qualitative study its strength lies in the fact that the subject is already in his/her natural setting and encounter fewer controlling factors (Sandelowski 1986).
To ensure the validity and reliability of data, researchers often use triangulation. Triangulation is defined as the use of different methods of data collection and its purpose is not to cross-examine but it aims to examine different dimensions of the same phenomenon.
“Triangulation can be used to deepen the researchers’ understanding of the issues and maximize their confidence in the findings of qualitative studies” (Guion L., Diehl D. and McDonald D).
Triangulation has been used extensively in qualitative communication research especially in the field of nursing research. For example, in a paper by Renz Susan, Carrington Jane and Badger Terry triangulation of two methods of data analysis to provide meaning and explore nurse-to-nurse communication in the acute care setting. The purpose of the study was to understand the experiences of the nurses using the electronic health detector. Data was gathered through interviews and was analyzed using both contented analysis and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming as an approach to communication, personal development and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder).
In conclusion, qualitative communication research aims to gain an understanding of a social phenomenon in the communication field through the collection and analysis of empirical data. Triangulation is generally used to bring more validity to the knowledge produced by combining different methodologies and data to create deeper understandings to the knowledge provided by the study.
Sources:
Astroth K., Chung S., (2018), “Focusing on the Fundamentals: Reading Qualitative Research with a Critical eye,” Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(4)
Benohel JQ, (1985), “Advancing nursing science qualitative approaches” Western Journal of Nursing Research 6(3) Suppl, 1-8
Bryman A. (1988), “Quantity and Quality in Social Research”, Routledge, London
Carr L. (1994), "The Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research: What method for nursing?" Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, p:716-721
Cormack D FS (ed), (1991), "The Research Process in Nursing” 2nd edn Blackwell Scientific, Oxford
Comer J (1991), “In search of more complete answers to research questions Quantitative versus qualitative research methods is there a way forward'' Journal of Advanced Nursing 16(3), 718-727
Denzin N. K., (1978), “The Research Act A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods” McGraw-Hill, London
Duffy ME (1985), “Designing nursing research the qualitative-quantitative debate” Journal of Advanced Nursing 10(3), 225-232
Duffy ME (1986), "Quantitative and qualitative research antagonistic or complementary" Nursing and Health Care 8(6), 356-357
Gray D., (2004), “Doing Research in the Real World,” Sage Publications Ltd
Gray D., (2017), “Doing Research in the Real World,” Sage Publications Ltd
Meha K. M., (1982), “'Tell it as it is' — qualitative methodology and nursing research understanding the student nurse's world” Journal of Advanced Nursing 7(4), 327-335
McMullen L., Winston-Proctor C. (2018), “Qualitative Inquiry in Undergraduate Psychology Curricula and Research Training: Contexts and Practices for Transforming the Optional into the Obligatory,” Qualitative Psychology, 5(2), p:191-196
Noble H., Smith J., (2015), “Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research”
Evidence-Based Nursing, 18 p:34-35.’
Sandelowski M., (1986), “The problem of rigor in qualitative research” Advances m Nursing Science 8(3), 27-37
Saul Mcleod, (2017), Qualitative Vs. Quantitative Research, website: https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
Rawlin K., (2012), “Towards an Opening,” Qualitative Communication Research, 1(1), p:143-151
Renz S., Carrington J., Badger T., (2018), “Two Strategies for Qualitative Content Analysis: An Intramethod Approach to Triangulation” Qualitative Health Research, 28(15), p: 824-831
Institutional Review Board For Social Behavioral Sciences, U.va. website: http://www.virginia.edu/vpr/irb/sbs/submissions_before_act_defres.htm
Human Subjects Office, website: https://hso.research.uiowa.edu/defining-research
Definition Of Research, website: https://explorable.com/definition-of-research
Lindlof T., Taylor B. (2017), “Qualitative Communication Research Methods: Edition 4,” SAGE Publications