Qualitative methods blog posts

qualitative methods

Articles on qualitative methods

 

 

This series aims to introduce qualitative methods and some of the main approaches in collecting qualitative data.

 

 

Why qualitative research?
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics It's easy to knock statistics for being misleading, or even misused to support spurious findings. In fact, there seems to be a growing backlash at the...

What is a Qualitative approach
The benefit of having tastier satsumas is difficult to quantify: to turn into a numerical, comparable value. This is essentially what qualitative work does: measure the unquantifiable quality of...

An overview of qualitative methods
There are a lot of different ways to collect qualitative data, and this article just provides a brief summary of some of the main methods used in qualitative research. Each one is an art in its own...

Thinking About Me: Reflexivity in science and qualitative research
Reflexivity is a process (and it should be a continuing process) of reflecting on how the researcher could be influencing a research project. In a traditional positivist research paradigm...

 

 

Qualitative Interviews

 

10 tips for semi-structured qualitative interviewing
Many qualitative researchers spend a lot of time interviewing participants, so here are some quick tips to make interviews go as smooth as possible: before, during and after! 1. Let your...

Designing a semi-structured interview guide for qualitative interviews
Interviews are a frequently used research method in qualitative studies. You will see dozens of papers that state something like We conducted n in-depth semi-structured interviews with...

 

 

Focus Groups

Considering and planning for qualitative focus groups
This is the first in a two-part series on focus groups. This week, we are looking at some of the why you might consider using them in a research project...

Tips for running effective focus groups
In the last blog article I looked at some of the justifications for choosing focus groups as a method in qualitative research. This week, we will focus on some practical tips to make sure that focus groups run smoothly...

 

 

Participatory Methods

Participatory Qualitative Analysis
Engaging participants in the research process can be a valuable and insightful endeavour, leading to researchers addressing the right issues, and asking the right questions. Many funding...

Participant diaries for qualitative research
I've written a little about this before, but I really love participant diaries! In qualitative research, you are often trying to understand the lives, experiences and motivations of...

 

 

Qualitative and mixed method surveys

Bringing survey data and mixed-method research into Quirkos
Later today we are releasing a small update for Quirkos, which adds an important feature users have been requesting: the ability to quickly bring in quantitative and qualitative data from any...

The importance of keeping open-ended qualitative responses in surveys
I once had a very interesting conversation at a MRS event with a market researcher from a major media company. He told me that they were increasingly ‘costing-out’ the qualitative open-ended questions from customer surveys...
 

How to set up a free online mixed methods survey
It's quick and easy to set up an on-line survey to collect feedback or research data in a digital format that means you can quickly get straight to analysing the data. Unfortunately, most...


 

Qualitative evaluations

Qualitative evaluations: methods, data and analysis
Evaluating programmes and projects are an essential part of the feedback loop that should lead to better services. In fact, programmes should be designed with evaluations in mind, to make sure that...

Using Quirkos for Systematic Reviews and Evidence Synthesis
Most of the examples the blog has covered so far have been about using Quirkos for research, especially with interview and participant text sources. However, Quirkos can take any text source you can...
 

Qualitative evidence for evaluations and impact assessments
For the last few months we have been working with SANDS Lothians, a local charity offering help and support for families who have lost a baby in miscarriage, stillbirth or soon after birth. They...


 

Sampling and sample sizes

Sampling considerations in qualitative research
Two weeks ago I talked about the importance of developing a recruitment strategy when designing a research project. This week we will do a brief overview of sampling for qualitative research...
 

Reaching saturation point in qualitative research
A common question from newcomers to qualitative research is, what's the right sample size How many people do I need to have in my project to get a good answer for my research...
 

Triangulation in qualitative research
Most qualitative research will be designed to integrate insights from a variety of data sources, methods and interpretations to build a deep picture. Triangulation is the term used to describe this comparison and meshing of different data...

 

 

Recording and Transcribing

Recording good audio for qualitative interviews and focus groups
Last week's blog post looked at the transcription process, and what's involved in getting qualitative interview or focus-group data transcribed. This week, we are going to step...
 

Transcribing your own qualitative data
In a previous blog article I talked about some of the practicalities and costs involved in using a professional transcribing service to turn your beautifully recorded qualitative interviews and...

Transcription for qualitative interviews and focus-groups
Audio and video give you a level of depth into your data that can't be conveyed by words alone, letting you hear hesitations, sarcasm, and nuances in delivery that can change your...


 

 

Tips for running effective focus groups

In the last blog article I looked at some of the justifications for choosing focus groups as a method in qualitative research. This week, we will focus on some practical tips to make sure that focus groups run smoothly, and to ensure you get good engagement from your participants.

 


1. Make sure you have a helper!

It’s very difficult to run focus groups on your own. If you are wanting to layout the room, greet people, deal with refreshment requests, check recording equipment is working, start video cameras, take notes, ask questions, let in late-comers and facilitate discussion it’s much easier with two or even three people for larger groups. You will probably want to focus on listening to the discussion, not have to take notes and problem solve at the same time. Having another facilitator or helper around can make a lot of difference to how well the session runs, as well as how much good data is recorded from it.

 


2. Check your recording strategy

Most people will record audio and transcribe their focus groups later. You need to make sure that your recording equipment will pick up everyone in the room, and also that you have a backup dictaphone and batteries! Many more tips in this blog post article. If you are planning to video the session, think this through carefully.

 

Do you have the right equipment? A phone camera might seem OK, but they usually struggle to record long sessions, and are difficult to position in a way that will show everyone clearly. Special cameras designed for gig and band practice are actually really good for focus groups, they tend to have wide-angle lenses and good microphones so you don’t need to record separate audio. You might also want to have more than one camera (in a round-table discussion, someone will always have their back to the camera. Then you will want to think about using qualitative analysis software like Transana that will support multiple video feeds.

 

You also need to make sure that video is culturally appropriate for your group (some religions and cultures don’t approve of taking images) and that it won’t make people nervous and clam up in discussion. Usually I find a dictaphone less imposing than a camera lens, but you then loose the ability to record the body language of the group. Video also makes it much easier to identify different speakers!

 


3. Consent and introductions

I always prefer to do the consent forms and participant information before the session. Faffing around with forms to sign at the start or end of the workshop takes up a lot of time best used for discussion, and makes people hurried to read the project information. E-mail this to people ahead of time, so at least they can just sign on the day, or bring a completed form with them. I really feel that participants should get the option to see what they are signing up for before they agree to come to a session, so they are not made uncomfortable on the day if it doesn't sound right for them. However, make sure there is an opportunity for people to ask any questions, and state any additional preferences, privately or in public.

 


4. Food and drink

You may decide not to have refreshments at all (your venue might dictate that) but I really love having a good spread of food and drink at a focus group. It makes it feel more like a party or family occasion than an interrogation procedure, and really helps people open up.

 

While tea, coffee and biscuits/cookies might be enough for most people, I love baking and always bring something home-baked like a cake or cookies. Getting to talk about and offer  food is a great icebreaker, and also makes people feel valued when you have spent the time to make something. A key part of getting good data from a good focus group is to set a congenial atmosphere, and an interesting choice of drinks or fruit can really help this. Don’t forget to get dietary preferences ahead of time, and consider the need for vegetarian, diabetic and gluten-free options.

 


5. The venue and layout

A lot has already been said about the best way to set out a focus group discussion (see Chambers 2002), but there are a few basic things to consider. First, a round or rectangle table arrangement works best, not lecture hall-type rows. Everyone should be able to see the face of everyone else. It’s also important not to have the researcher/facilitator at the head or even centre of the table. You are not the boss of the session, merely there to guide the debate. There is already a power dynamic because you have invited people, and are running the session. Try and sit yourself on the side as an observer, not director of the session.

 

In terms of the venue, try and make sure it is as quiet as possible, and good natural light and even high ceilings can help spark creative discussion (Meyers-Levy and Zhu 2007).

 


6. Set and state the norms

A common problem in qualitative focus group discussions is that some people dominate the debate, while others are shy and contribute little. Chambers (2002) just suggests to say at the beginning of the session this tends to happen, to make people conscious of sharing too much or too little. You can also try and actively manage this during the session by prompting other people to speak, go round the room person by person, or have more formal systems where people raise their hands to talk or have to be holding a stone. These methods are more time consuming for the facilitator and can stifle open discussion, so it's best to use them only when necessary.

 

You should also set out ground rules, attempting to create an open space for uncritical discussion. It's not usually the aim for people to criticise the view of others, nor for the facilitator to be seen as the leader and boss. Make these things explicit at the start to make sure there is the right atmosphere for sharing: one where there is no right or wrong answer, and everyone has something valuable to contribute.

 


7. Exercises and energisers

To prompt better discussion when people are tired or not forthcoming, you can use exercises such as card ranking exercises, role play exercises and prompts for discussion such as stories or newspaper articles. Chambers (2002) suggests dozens of these, as well as some some off-the-wall 'energizer' exercises: fun games to get people to wake up and encourage discussion. More on this in the last blog post article. It can really help to go round the room and have people introduce themselves with a fun fact, not just to get the names and voices on tape for later identification, but as a warm up.

 

Also, the first question, exercise or discussion point should be easy. If the first topic is 'How did you feel when you had cancer?' that can be pretty intimidating to start with. Something much simpler, such as 'What was hospital food like?' or even 'How was your trip here?' are topics everyone can easily contribute to and safely argue over, gaining confidence to share something deeper later on.

 


8. Step back, and step out

In focus groups, the aim is usually to get participants to discuss with each-other, not a series of dialogues with the facilitator. The power dynamics of the group need to reflect this, and as soon as things are set in motion, the researcher should try and intervene as little as possible – occasionally asking for clarification or to set things back on track. Thus it's also their role to help participants understand this, and allow the group discussion to be as co-interactive as possible.

 

“When group dynamics worked well the co-participants acted as co-
researchers taking the research into new and often unexpected directions and engaging in interaction which were both complementary (such as sharing common experiences) and argumentative” 
- Kitzinger 1994

 


9. Anticipate depth

Focus groups usually last a long time, rarely less than 2 hours, but even a half or whole day of discussion can be appropriate if there are lots of complex topics to discuss. It's OK to consider having participants do multiple focus groups if there is lots to cover, just consider what will best fit around the lives of your participants.

 

At the end of these you should find there is a lot of detailed and deep qualitative data for analysis. It can really help digesting this to make lots of notes during the session, as a summary of key issues, your own reflexive comments on the process, and the unspoken subtext (who wasn't sharing on what topics, what people mean when they say, 'you know, that lady with the big hair').


You may also find that qualitative analysis software like Quirkos can help pull together all the complex themes and discussions from your focus groups, and break down the mass of transcribed data you will end up with! We designed Quirkos to be very simple and easy to use, so do download and try for yourself...

 

 

 

Qualitative evaluations: methods, data and analysis

reports on a shelf

Evaluating programmes and projects are an essential part of the feedback loop that should lead to better services. In fact, programmes should be designed with evaluations in mind, to make sure that there are defined and measurable outcomes.

 

While most evaluations generally include numerical analysis, qualitative data is often used along-side the quantitative, to show richness of project impact, and put a human voice in the process. Especially when a project doesn’t meet targets, or have the desired level of impact, comments from project managers and service users usually give the most information into what went wrong (or right) and why.

 

For smaller pilot and feasibility projects, qualitative data is often the mainstay of the evaluation data, when numerical data wouldn’t reach statistical analysis, or when it is too early in a programme to measure intended impact. For example, a programme looking at obesity reductions might not be able to demonstrate a lower number of diabetes referrals at first, but qualitative insight in the first year or few months of the project might show how well messages from the project are being received, or if targeted groups are talking about changing their behaviour. When goals like this are long term (and in public health and community interventions they often are) it’s important to continuously assess the precursors to impact: namely engagement, and this is usually best done in a qualitative way.

 

So, what is best practice for qualitative evaluations? Fortunately, there are some really good guides and overviews that can help teams choose the right qualitative approach. Vaterlaus and Higgenbotham give a great overview of qualitative evaluation methods, while Professor Frank Vanclay talks at a wider level about qualitative evaluations, and innovative ways to capture stories. However, there was also a nice ‘tick-box’ style guide produced by the old Public Health Resource Unit which can still be found at this link. Essentially, the tool suggests 10 questions that can be used to assess the quality of a qualitative based-evaluation – really useful when looking at evaluations that come from other fields or departments.

 

But my contention is that the appraisal tool above is best implemented as a guide for producing qualitative evaluations. If you start by considering the best approach, how you are going to demonstrate rigour, choosing appropriate methods and recruitment, you’ll get a better report at the end of it. I’d like to discuss and expand on some of the questions used to assess the rigour of the qualitative work, because this is something that often worries people about qualitative research, and these steps help demystify good practice.

 

  1. The process: Start by planning the whole evaluation from the outset: What do you plan to do? All the rest will then fall into place.
     
  2. The research questions: what are they and why were these chosen? Are the questions going to give the evaluation the data it needs, and will the methods capture that correctly?
     
  3. Recruitment: who did you choose, and why? Who didn’t take part, and how did you find people? What gaps are there likely to be in representing the target group, and how can you compensate for this? Were there any ethical considerations, how was consent gained, and what was the relationship between the participants and the researcher(s)? Did they have any reason to be biased or not truthful?
     
  4. The data: how did you know that enough had been collected? (Usually when you are starting to hear the same things over and over – saturation) How was it recorded, transcribed, and was it of good quality? Were people willing to give detailed answers?
     
  5. Analysis: make sure you describe how it was done, and what techniques were used (such as discourse or thematic analysis). How does the report choose which quotes to reproduce, and are there contradictions reported in the data? What was the role of the researcher – should they declare a bias, and were multiple views sought in the interpretation of the data?
     
  6. Findings: do they meet the aims and research questions? If not, what needs to be done next time? Are there clear findings and action points, appropriate to improving the project?

 

Then the final step for me is the most important of all: SHARE! Don't let it end up on a dusty shelf! Evaluations are usually seen as a tedious but necessary internal process, but they can be so useful to people as case-studies and learning tools in organisations and groups you might never have thought of. This is especially true if there are things that went wrong, help someone in another local authority not make the same mistakes!

 

At the moment the best UK repositories of evaluations are based around health and economic benefits but that doesn’t stop you putting the report on your organisation’s website – if someone is looking for a similar project, search engines will do the leg work for you. That evaluation might save someone a lot of time and money, and it goes without saying, look for any similar work before you start a project, you might get some good ideas, and stop yourself falling into the same pit-holes!

 

Participatory analysis: closing the loop

In participatory research, we try to get away from the idea of researchers doing research on people, and move to a model where they are conducting research with people.

 

The movement comes partly from feminist critiques of epistemology, attacking the pervasive notion that knowledge can only be created by experienced academics, The traditional way of doing research generally disempowers people, as the researchers get to decide what questions to ask, how to interpret and present them, and even what topics are worthy of study in the first place. In participatory research the people who are the focus of the research are seen as the experts, rather than the researchers. At face value, this seems to make sense. After all, who knows more about life on a council estate: someone who has lived there for 20 years, or a middle-class outside researcher?

 

In participatory research, the people who are the subject of the study are often encouraged to be a much greater part of the process, active participants rather than aliens observed from afar. They know they are taking part in the research process, and the research is designed to give them input into what the study should be focusing on. The project can also use research methods that allow people to have more power over what they share, for example by taking photos of their environment, having open group discussions in the community, or using diaries and narratives in lieu of short questionnaires. Groups focused on developing and championing this work include the Participatory Geographies working group of the RGS/IBG, and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex.

 

This approach is becoming increasingly accepted in mainstream academia, and many funding bodies, including the NIHR, now require all proposals for research projects to have had patient or 'lay-person' involvement in the planning process, to ensure the design of the project is asking the right questions in an appropriate way. Most government funded projects will also stipulate that a summary of findings should be written in a non-technical, freely available format so that everyone involved and affected by the research can access it.

 

Engaging with analysis

Sounds great, right? In a transparent way, non-academics are now involved in everything: choosing which studies are the most important, deciding the focus, choosing the methods and collecting and contributing to the data.

 

But then what? There seems to be a step missing there, what about the analysis?

 

It could be argued that this is the most critical part of the whole process, where researchers summarise, piece together and extrapolate answers from the large mass of data that was collectively gathered. But far too often, this process is a 'black-box' conducted by the researchers themselves, with little if any input from the research participants. It can be a mystery to outsiders, how did researchers come to the particular findings and conclusions from all the different issues that the research revealed? What was discarded? Why was the data interpreted in this way?

 

This process is usually glossed over even in journal articles and final reports, and explaining the process to participants is difficult. Often this is a technical limitation: if you are conducting a muli-factor longitudinal study, the calculation of the statistical analysis is usually beyond all but the most mathematically minded academics, let alone the average Jo.

 

Yet this is also a problem in qualitative research, where participatory methods are often used. Between grounded theory, framework analysis and emergent coding, the approach is complicated and contested even within academia. Furthermore, qualitative analysis is a very lengthy process, with researchers reading and re-reading hundreds or thousands of pages of text: a prospect unappealing to often unpaid research participants.

 

Finally, the existing technical solutions don't seem to help. Software like Nvivo, often used for this type of analysis, is daunting for many researchers without training, and encouraging people from outside the field to try and use it, with all the training and licensing implications of this, makes for an effective brick wall. There are ways to make analysis engaging for everyone, but many research projects don't attempt participation at the analysis stage.

 

Intuitive software to the rescue?

By making qualitative analysis visual and engaging, Quirkos hopes to make participatory analysis a bit more feasible. Users don't require lengthy training, and everyone can have a go. They can make their own topics, analyse their own transcripts (or other people's), and individuals in a large community group can go away and do as little or as much as they like, and the results can be combined, with the team knowing who did what (if desired).

 

It can also become a dynamic group exercise, where with a tablet, large touch surface or projector, everyone can be 'hands on' at once. Rather than doing analysis on flip-charts that someone has to take away and process after the event, the real coding and analysis is done live, on the fly. Everyone can see how the analysis is building, and how the findings are emerging as the bubbles grow. Finally, when it comes to share the findings, rather than long spreadsheets of results, you get a picture – the bubbles tell the story and the issues.

 

Quirkos offers a way to practically and affordably facilitate proper end-to-end participatory research, and finally close the loop to make participation part of every stage in the research process.

 

 

10 tips for semi-structured qualitative interviewing

Many qualitative researchers spend a lot of time interviewing participants, so here are some quick tips to make interviews go as smooth as possible: before, during and after!

 

1. Let your participants choose the location

If you want your interviewees to be comfortable in sharing sometimes personal or sensitive information, make sure they can do it in a comfortable location. For some people, this might be their own house, or a neutral territory like a local cafe. Giving them the choice can help build trust, and gives the right impression: that you are accomodating them. However, make sure you make it clear that you need a relatively quiet location free from interruptions: a pub that plays loud music will not only stop you hearing each other, but usually makes recordings unusable!

 

2. Remember that they are helping you

Be polite and curtious, and be grateful to them for sharing their time and experiences. This always gets interviews off on the right foot. Also, try and think about participants motivations for taking part. Do they want the research to help others? Are they looking for a theraputic discussion? Do they just like a chat? Understanding this will help you guide the interview, and make sure you meet their expectations.

 

3. A conversation, not an interregation!

Interviews work best when they are a friendly dialogue: don't be afraid to start with some small talk, even when the tape is running. It turns a weird situation into a much more normal human experience, and starting with some easy 'starter for 10' questions helps people open up. Even a chatty "How did you hear about the project?" can gives you useful information.

 

4. Memorise the topic guide, but keep it to hand

Knowing all the questions in the topic guide can really help, so group them thematically, and memorise them as much as you can. It will really help the flow of information if you can segue seamlessly from one question to another relevant one. However, it's always useful to keep a print-out in front of you, not just for if you forget something, but also to make you seem more human, with a specific role. Joking about remembering all the questions is a great icebreaker, and it gives you something to look at other than the participant, to stop the session turning into a staring match!

 

5. Use open body language and encouraging cues

Face the participant in a friendly way, and nod or look sympathetic at the right times. Sometimes it's tempting for the interviewer to keep quiet during the responses, and not put in any normal encouraging noises like "Yeah", "Hmm" or "Right" knowing how odd these read in a transcript. But these are important cues that people use to know when to keep talking, so if you are going to drop them, make sure you make positive eye contact, and nod at the right times instead!

 

Quirkos - simple qualitative analysis software

 

6. Write notes, even if you don't use them

It always helps me to scribble down some one-word notes on the topic guide when you are doing an interview: first of all it helps focus my thoughts, and remind me about interesting things that the participant mentioned that I want to go back to. But it also helps show you are listening, and makes sure if the recording goes wrong, there is something to fall back on.

 

7. Write-up the interivew as soon as you finish

Just take 15 minutes after each interview to reflect: the main points that came up, how open the respondent was, any context or distractions that might have impared the flow. This helps you think about things to do better in the next interview, and will help you later to remember each interview.

 

8. Return to difficult issues

If a particular topic is clearly a difficult question (either emotionally, or just because someone can't remember) don't be afraid to leave the topic and come back to it later, asking in a different way. It can really help recall to have a break talking about something easier, and then approach the issue sideways later on.

 

9. Ask stupid questions

Don't assume you know anything. In these kinds of interviews, it's usually not about getting the right answer, but getting the respondent's view or opinion. Asking 'What do you mean by family?' is really useful if you discover someone has adopted children, step-sisters and a beloved family dog that all share the house. Don't make any assumptions, let people tell you what they mean. Even if you have to ask something that makes you sound ignorant on a specialist subject, you could discover that someone didn't know the difference between their chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

 

10. Say thank you

And follow up: send a nice card after the interview, don't be like a date they never hear from again! Also, try and make sure they get a summary of the findings of the study they took part in. It's not just about being nice, but to make sure people have a good experience as a research subject, and will want to be involved in the next project that comes along, which might be yours or mine!

 

I hope these tips have been hopeful, don't forget Qurikos makes your transcribed interviews easy to analyse, as well as a visual and engaging process. Find out more and download a free trial from our website. Our blog is updated with articles like this every week, and you can hear about it first by following our Twitter feed @quirkossoftware.

 

 

An overview of qualitative methods

There are a lot of different ways to collect qualitative data, and this article just provides a brief summary of some of the main methods used in qualitative research. Each one is an art in its own right, with various different techniques, definitions, approaches and proponents.

More on each one will follow in later articles, and it’s worth remembering that these need to be paired with the right questions, sampling, and analysis to get good results.

Interviews

Possibly the richest, and most powerful tool: talking to someone directly. The classic definition is “conversations with a purpose“, the idea being that there is something you are interested in, you ask questions about it, and someone gives useful responses.

There are many different styles for example how structured your questions are (this paper has a wonderful and succinct overview in the introduction). These can range from a rigid script where you ask the same questions every time, or completely open discussion, where the researcher and respondent have freedom to shape the conversation. A common middle ground are semi-structured interviews, which often have a topic guide, listing particualar issues to discuss, but will allow questions for clarification, or to follow up on an interesting tangent.

Participant Observation

Often the remit of ethnography or sociology, participant observation usually involves watching, living or even participating in the daily life of research subjects. However, it can also involve just watching people in a certain setting, such as a work meeting, or using a supermarket.

This is probably the most time intensive and potentially problematic method, as it can involve weeks or even years of placement for a researcher, often on their own. However, it does produce some of the richest data, as well as a level of depth that can really help explain complex issues. This chapter is a fine starting point.

Focus groups

A common method used in market research, where a researcher leads a group discussion on a particular topic. However, it is also a powerful tool for social researchers, especially when looking at group dynamics, or the reactions of particular groups of people. It’s obviously important to consider who is chosen for the group, and how the interactions of people in the group affect the outcome (although this might be what you are looking for).

It’s usually a quicker and cheaper way of gauging many reactions and opinions, but requires some skill in the facilitator to make sure everyone’s voice is being heard, and that people stay on track. Also a headache for any transcribers who have to identify different voices from muffled audio recordings!

Participant Diaries

Getting people to write a diary for a research project is a very useful tool, and is commonly used in looking at taboo behaviours such as drug use or sexuality, not just because researchers don’t have to ask difficult questions face-to-face, but that data can be collected over a long period of time. If you are trying to find out how often a particular behaviour occurs, a daily or weekly record is likely to be more accurate than asking someone in a single interview (as in the studies above).

There are other benefits to the diary method: not least that the participant is in control. They can share as much or as little as they like, and only on topics they wish to. It can also be theraputic for some people, and is more time flexible. Diaries can be paper based, electronic, or even on a voice recorder if there are literacy concerns. However, researchers will probably need to talk to people at the beginning and end of the process, and give regular reminders.

Surveys

Probably one of the most common qualitative methods are the open ended questions on surveys, usually by post, on-line, or ‘guided’ by someone with a clipboard. Common challenges here are

  • Encouraging people to write more than one word, but less than an essay
  • Setting questions carefully so they are clear, but not leading
  • Getting a good response rate and
  • Knowing who has and hasn’t responded

The final challenge is to make sure the responses are useful, and integrating them with the rest of the project, especially quantitative data.

Field notes

Sometimes the most overlooked, but most vaulable source of information can be the notes and field diaries of researchers themselves. These can include not just where and when people did interviews or observations, but crucial context, like the people who refused to take part, and whether a interviewee was nervous. It need not just be for ethnographers doing long field work, it can be very helpful in organising thoughts and work in smaller projects with multiple researchers.

As part of a reflexive method, it might contain comments and thoughts from the researcher, so there can be a risk of autobiographical overindulgence. It is also not easy to integrate ‘data’ from a research diary with other sources of information when writing up a project for a particular output.

 

This is just a whistle-stop introduction, but more on each of these to follow…