observation and interview in qualitative research

Qualitative Interviewing

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 13 January 2019
• Cite this reference work entry

• Sally Nathan 2 ,
• Christy Newman 3 &
• Kari Lancaster 3  

4061 Accesses

20 Citations

8 Altmetric

Qualitative interviewing is a foundational method in qualitative research and is widely used in health research and the social sciences. Both qualitative semi-structured and in-depth unstructured interviews use verbal communication, mostly in face-to-face interactions, to collect data about the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of participants. Interviews are an accessible, often affordable, and effective method to understand the socially situated world of research participants. The approach is typically informed by an interpretive framework where the data collected is not viewed as evidence of the truth or reality of a situation or experience but rather a context-bound subjective insight from the participants. The researcher needs to be open to new insights and to privilege the participant’s experience in data collection. The data from qualitative interviews is not generalizable, but its exploratory nature permits the collection of rich data which can answer questions about which little is already known. This chapter introduces the reader to qualitative interviewing, the range of traditions within which interviewing is utilized as a method, and highlights the advantages and some of the challenges and misconceptions in its application. The chapter also provides practical guidance on planning and conducting interview studies. Three case examples are presented to highlight the benefits and risks in the use of interviewing with different participants, providing situated insights as well as advice about how to go about learning to interview if you are a novice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Baez B. Confidentiality in qualitative research: reflections on secrets, power and agency. Qual Res. 2002;2(1):35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794102002001638 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Braun V, Clarke V, Gray D. Collecting qualitative data: a practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

Crotty M. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Australia: Allen & Unwin; 1998.

Davies MB. Doing a successful research project: using qualitative or quantitative methods. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2007.

Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Liamputtong P. Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

Foster M, Nathan S, Ferry M. The experience of drug-dependent adolescents in a therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(5):531–9.

Gillham B. The research interview. London: Continuum; 2000.

Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.

Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P. In-depth interview. In: The practice of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011. p. 119–47

Irvine A. Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face interviews: a comparative exploration. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(3):202–20.

Johnson JM. In-depth interviewing. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: context and method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.

Kvale S. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.

Kvale S. Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications; 2007.

Lancaster K. Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(1):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1123555 .

Leavy P. Method meets art: arts-based research practice. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.

Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2007.

Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. London: BMJ Books; 2000. p. 89–102.

McLellan E, MacQueen KM, Neidig JL. Beyond the qualitative interview: data preparation and transcription. Field Methods. 2003;15(1):63–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239573 .

Minichiello V, Aroni R, Hays T. In-depth interviewing: principles, techniques, analysis. 3rd ed. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia; 2008.

Morris ZS. The truth about interviewing elites. Politics. 2009;29(3):209–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2009.01357.x .

Nathan S, Foster M, Ferry M. Peer and sexual relationships in the experience of drug-dependent adolescents in a therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30(4):419–27.

National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Australian Government; 2007.

Neal S, McLaughlin E. Researching up? Interviews, emotionality and policy-making elites. J Soc Policy. 2009;38(04):689–707. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409990018 .

O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106 .

Ostrander S. “Surely you're not in this just to be helpful”: access, rapport and interviews in three studies of elites. In: Hertz R, Imber J, editors. Studying elites using qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995. p. 133–50.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Patton M. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015.

Punch KF. Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage; 2005.

Rhodes T, Bernays S, Houmoller K. Parents who use drugs: accounting for damage and its limitation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(8):1489–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.028 .

Riessman CK. Narrative analysis. London: Sage; 1993.

Ritchie J. Not everything can be reduced to numbers. In: Berglund C, editor. Health research. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 149–73.

Rubin H, Rubin I. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2012.

Serry T, Liamputtong P. The in-depth interviewing method in health. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 67–83.

Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 5th ed. London: Sage; 2017.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (coreq): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sally Nathan

Centre for Social Research in Health, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Christy Newman & Kari Lancaster

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally Nathan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Nathan, S., Newman, C., Lancaster, K. (2019). Qualitative Interviewing. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77

Published : 13 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5250-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5251-4

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Chapter 11. Interviewing

Introduction.

Interviewing people is at the heart of qualitative research. It is not merely a way to collect data but an intrinsically rewarding activity—an interaction between two people that holds the potential for greater understanding and interpersonal development. Unlike many of our daily interactions with others that are fairly shallow and mundane, sitting down with a person for an hour or two and really listening to what they have to say is a profound and deep enterprise, one that can provide not only “data” for you, the interviewer, but also self-understanding and a feeling of being heard for the interviewee. I always approach interviewing with a deep appreciation for the opportunity it gives me to understand how other people experience the world. That said, there is not one kind of interview but many, and some of these are shallower than others. This chapter will provide you with an overview of interview techniques but with a special focus on the in-depth semistructured interview guide approach, which is the approach most widely used in social science research.

An interview can be variously defined as “a conversation with a purpose” ( Lune and Berg 2018 ) and an attempt to understand the world from the point of view of the person being interviewed: “to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations” ( Kvale 2007 ). It is a form of active listening in which the interviewer steers the conversation to subjects and topics of interest to their research but also manages to leave enough space for those interviewed to say surprising things. Achieving that balance is a tricky thing, which is why most practitioners believe interviewing is both an art and a science. In my experience as a teacher, there are some students who are “natural” interviewers (often they are introverts), but anyone can learn to conduct interviews, and everyone, even those of us who have been doing this for years, can improve their interviewing skills. This might be a good time to highlight the fact that the interview is a product between interviewer and interviewee and that this product is only as good as the rapport established between the two participants. Active listening is the key to establishing this necessary rapport.

Patton ( 2002 ) makes the argument that we use interviews because there are certain things that are not observable. In particular, “we cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We cannot observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those things” ( 341 ).

Types of Interviews

There are several distinct types of interviews. Imagine a continuum (figure 11.1). On one side are unstructured conversations—the kind you have with your friends. No one is in control of those conversations, and what you talk about is often random—whatever pops into your head. There is no secret, underlying purpose to your talking—if anything, the purpose is to talk to and engage with each other, and the words you use and the things you talk about are a little beside the point. An unstructured interview is a little like this informal conversation, except that one of the parties to the conversation (you, the researcher) does have an underlying purpose, and that is to understand the other person. You are not friends speaking for no purpose, but it might feel just as unstructured to the “interviewee” in this scenario. That is one side of the continuum. On the other side are fully structured and standardized survey-type questions asked face-to-face. Here it is very clear who is asking the questions and who is answering them. This doesn’t feel like a conversation at all! A lot of people new to interviewing have this ( erroneously !) in mind when they think about interviews as data collection. Somewhere in the middle of these two extreme cases is the “ semistructured” interview , in which the researcher uses an “interview guide” to gently move the conversation to certain topics and issues. This is the primary form of interviewing for qualitative social scientists and will be what I refer to as interviewing for the rest of this chapter, unless otherwise specified.

Informal (unstructured conversations). This is the most “open-ended” approach to interviewing. It is particularly useful in conjunction with observational methods (see chapters 13 and 14). There are no predetermined questions. Each interview will be different. Imagine you are researching the Oregon Country Fair, an annual event in Veneta, Oregon, that includes live music, artisan craft booths, face painting, and a lot of people walking through forest paths. It’s unlikely that you will be able to get a person to sit down with you and talk intensely about a set of questions for an hour and a half. But you might be able to sidle up to several people and engage with them about their experiences at the fair. You might have a general interest in what attracts people to these events, so you could start a conversation by asking strangers why they are here or why they come back every year. That’s it. Then you have a conversation that may lead you anywhere. Maybe one person tells a long story about how their parents brought them here when they were a kid. A second person talks about how this is better than Burning Man. A third person shares their favorite traveling band. And yet another enthuses about the public library in the woods. During your conversations, you also talk about a lot of other things—the weather, the utilikilts for sale, the fact that a favorite food booth has disappeared. It’s all good. You may not be able to record these conversations. Instead, you might jot down notes on the spot and then, when you have the time, write down as much as you can remember about the conversations in long fieldnotes. Later, you will have to sit down with these fieldnotes and try to make sense of all the information (see chapters 18 and 19).

Interview guide ( semistructured interview ). This is the primary type employed by social science qualitative researchers. The researcher creates an “interview guide” in advance, which she uses in every interview. In theory, every person interviewed is asked the same questions. In practice, every person interviewed is asked mostly the same topics but not always the same questions, as the whole point of a “guide” is that it guides the direction of the conversation but does not command it. The guide is typically between five and ten questions or question areas, sometimes with suggested follow-ups or prompts . For example, one question might be “What was it like growing up in Eastern Oregon?” with prompts such as “Did you live in a rural area? What kind of high school did you attend?” to help the conversation develop. These interviews generally take place in a quiet place (not a busy walkway during a festival) and are recorded. The recordings are transcribed, and those transcriptions then become the “data” that is analyzed (see chapters 18 and 19). The conventional length of one of these types of interviews is between one hour and two hours, optimally ninety minutes. Less than one hour doesn’t allow for much development of questions and thoughts, and two hours (or more) is a lot of time to ask someone to sit still and answer questions. If you have a lot of ground to cover, and the person is willing, I highly recommend two separate interview sessions, with the second session being slightly shorter than the first (e.g., ninety minutes the first day, sixty minutes the second). There are lots of good reasons for this, but the most compelling one is that this allows you to listen to the first day’s recording and catch anything interesting you might have missed in the moment and so develop follow-up questions that can probe further. This also allows the person being interviewed to have some time to think about the issues raised in the interview and go a little deeper with their answers.

Standardized questionnaire with open responses ( structured interview ). This is the type of interview a lot of people have in mind when they hear “interview”: a researcher comes to your door with a clipboard and proceeds to ask you a series of questions. These questions are all the same whoever answers the door; they are “standardized.” Both the wording and the exact order are important, as people’s responses may vary depending on how and when a question is asked. These are qualitative only in that the questions allow for “open-ended responses”: people can say whatever they want rather than select from a predetermined menu of responses. For example, a survey I collaborated on included this open-ended response question: “How does class affect one’s career success in sociology?” Some of the answers were simply one word long (e.g., “debt”), and others were long statements with stories and personal anecdotes. It is possible to be surprised by the responses. Although it’s a stretch to call this kind of questioning a conversation, it does allow the person answering the question some degree of freedom in how they answer.

Survey questionnaire with closed responses (not an interview!). Standardized survey questions with specific answer options (e.g., closed responses) are not really interviews at all, and they do not generate qualitative data. For example, if we included five options for the question “How does class affect one’s career success in sociology?”—(1) debt, (2) social networks, (3) alienation, (4) family doesn’t understand, (5) type of grad program—we leave no room for surprises at all. Instead, we would most likely look at patterns around these responses, thinking quantitatively rather than qualitatively (e.g., using regression analysis techniques, we might find that working-class sociologists were twice as likely to bring up alienation). It can sometimes be confusing for new students because the very same survey can include both closed-ended and open-ended questions. The key is to think about how these will be analyzed and to what level surprises are possible. If your plan is to turn all responses into a number and make predictions about correlations and relationships, you are no longer conducting qualitative research. This is true even if you are conducting this survey face-to-face with a real live human. Closed-response questions are not conversations of any kind, purposeful or not.

In summary, the semistructured interview guide approach is the predominant form of interviewing for social science qualitative researchers because it allows a high degree of freedom of responses from those interviewed (thus allowing for novel discoveries) while still maintaining some connection to a research question area or topic of interest. The rest of the chapter assumes the employment of this form.

Creating an Interview Guide

Your interview guide is the instrument used to bridge your research question(s) and what the people you are interviewing want to tell you. Unlike a standardized questionnaire, the questions actually asked do not need to be exactly what you have written down in your guide. The guide is meant to create space for those you are interviewing to talk about the phenomenon of interest, but sometimes you are not even sure what that phenomenon is until you start asking questions. A priority in creating an interview guide is to ensure it offers space. One of the worst mistakes is to create questions that are so specific that the person answering them will not stray. Relatedly, questions that sound “academic” will shut down a lot of respondents. A good interview guide invites respondents to talk about what is important to them, not feel like they are performing or being evaluated by you.

Good interview questions should not sound like your “research question” at all. For example, let’s say your research question is “How do patriarchal assumptions influence men’s understanding of climate change and responses to climate change?” It would be worse than unhelpful to ask a respondent, “How do your assumptions about the role of men affect your understanding of climate change?” You need to unpack this into manageable nuggets that pull your respondent into the area of interest without leading him anywhere. You could start by asking him what he thinks about climate change in general. Or, even better, whether he has any concerns about heatwaves or increased tornadoes or polar icecaps melting. Once he starts talking about that, you can ask follow-up questions that bring in issues around gendered roles, perhaps asking if he is married (to a woman) and whether his wife shares his thoughts and, if not, how they negotiate that difference. The fact is, you won’t really know the right questions to ask until he starts talking.

There are several distinct types of questions that can be used in your interview guide, either as main questions or as follow-up probes. If you remember that the point is to leave space for the respondent, you will craft a much more effective interview guide! You will also want to think about the place of time in both the questions themselves (past, present, future orientations) and the sequencing of the questions.

Researcher Note

Suggestion : As you read the next three sections (types of questions, temporality, question sequence), have in mind a particular research question, and try to draft questions and sequence them in a way that opens space for a discussion that helps you answer your research question.

Type of Questions

Experience and behavior questions ask about what a respondent does regularly (their behavior) or has done (their experience). These are relatively easy questions for people to answer because they appear more “factual” and less subjective. This makes them good opening questions. For the study on climate change above, you might ask, “Have you ever experienced an unusual weather event? What happened?” Or “You said you work outside? What is a typical summer workday like for you? How do you protect yourself from the heat?”

Opinion and values questions , in contrast, ask questions that get inside the minds of those you are interviewing. “Do you think climate change is real? Who or what is responsible for it?” are two such questions. Note that you don’t have to literally ask, “What is your opinion of X?” but you can find a way to ask the specific question relevant to the conversation you are having. These questions are a bit trickier to ask because the answers you get may depend in part on how your respondent perceives you and whether they want to please you or not. We’ve talked a fair amount about being reflective. Here is another place where this comes into play. You need to be aware of the effect your presence might have on the answers you are receiving and adjust accordingly. If you are a woman who is perceived as liberal asking a man who identifies as conservative about climate change, there is a lot of subtext that can be going on in the interview. There is no one right way to resolve this, but you must at least be aware of it.

Feeling questions are questions that ask respondents to draw on their emotional responses. It’s pretty common for academic researchers to forget that we have bodies and emotions, but people’s understandings of the world often operate at this affective level, sometimes unconsciously or barely consciously. It is a good idea to include questions that leave space for respondents to remember, imagine, or relive emotional responses to particular phenomena. “What was it like when you heard your cousin’s house burned down in that wildfire?” doesn’t explicitly use any emotion words, but it allows your respondent to remember what was probably a pretty emotional day. And if they respond emotionally neutral, that is pretty interesting data too. Note that asking someone “How do you feel about X” is not always going to evoke an emotional response, as they might simply turn around and respond with “I think that…” It is better to craft a question that actually pushes the respondent into the affective category. This might be a specific follow-up to an experience and behavior question —for example, “You just told me about your daily routine during the summer heat. Do you worry it is going to get worse?” or “Have you ever been afraid it will be too hot to get your work accomplished?”

Knowledge questions ask respondents what they actually know about something factual. We have to be careful when we ask these types of questions so that respondents do not feel like we are evaluating them (which would shut them down), but, for example, it is helpful to know when you are having a conversation about climate change that your respondent does in fact know that unusual weather events have increased and that these have been attributed to climate change! Asking these questions can set the stage for deeper questions and can ensure that the conversation makes the same kind of sense to both participants. For example, a conversation about political polarization can be put back on track once you realize that the respondent doesn’t really have a clear understanding that there are two parties in the US. Instead of asking a series of questions about Republicans and Democrats, you might shift your questions to talk more generally about political disagreements (e.g., “people against abortion”). And sometimes what you do want to know is the level of knowledge about a particular program or event (e.g., “Are you aware you can discharge your student loans through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program?”).

Sensory questions call on all senses of the respondent to capture deeper responses. These are particularly helpful in sparking memory. “Think back to your childhood in Eastern Oregon. Describe the smells, the sounds…” Or you could use these questions to help a person access the full experience of a setting they customarily inhabit: “When you walk through the doors to your office building, what do you see? Hear? Smell?” As with feeling questions , these questions often supplement experience and behavior questions . They are another way of allowing your respondent to report fully and deeply rather than remain on the surface.

Creative questions employ illustrative examples, suggested scenarios, or simulations to get respondents to think more deeply about an issue, topic, or experience. There are many options here. In The Trouble with Passion , Erin Cech ( 2021 ) provides a scenario in which “Joe” is trying to decide whether to stay at his decent but boring computer job or follow his passion by opening a restaurant. She asks respondents, “What should Joe do?” Their answers illuminate the attraction of “passion” in job selection. In my own work, I have used a news story about an upwardly mobile young man who no longer has time to see his mother and sisters to probe respondents’ feelings about the costs of social mobility. Jessi Streib and Betsy Leondar-Wright have used single-page cartoon “scenes” to elicit evaluations of potential racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and classism. Barbara Sutton ( 2010 ) has employed lists of words (“strong,” “mother,” “victim”) on notecards she fans out and asks her female respondents to select and discuss.

Background/Demographic Questions

You most definitely will want to know more about the person you are interviewing in terms of conventional demographic information, such as age, race, gender identity, occupation, and educational attainment. These are not questions that normally open up inquiry. [1] For this reason, my practice has been to include a separate “demographic questionnaire” sheet that I ask each respondent to fill out at the conclusion of the interview. Only include those aspects that are relevant to your study. For example, if you are not exploring religion or religious affiliation, do not include questions about a person’s religion on the demographic sheet. See the example provided at the end of this chapter.

Temporality

Any type of question can have a past, present, or future orientation. For example, if you are asking a behavior question about workplace routine, you might ask the respondent to talk about past work, present work, and ideal (future) work. Similarly, if you want to understand how people cope with natural disasters, you might ask your respondent how they felt then during the wildfire and now in retrospect and whether and to what extent they have concerns for future wildfire disasters. It’s a relatively simple suggestion—don’t forget to ask about past, present, and future—but it can have a big impact on the quality of the responses you receive.

Question Sequence

Having a list of good questions or good question areas is not enough to make a good interview guide. You will want to pay attention to the order in which you ask your questions. Even though any one respondent can derail this order (perhaps by jumping to answer a question you haven’t yet asked), a good advance plan is always helpful. When thinking about sequence, remember that your goal is to get your respondent to open up to you and to say things that might surprise you. To establish rapport, it is best to start with nonthreatening questions. Asking about the present is often the safest place to begin, followed by the past (they have to know you a little bit to get there), and lastly, the future (talking about hopes and fears requires the most rapport). To allow for surprises, it is best to move from very general questions to more particular questions only later in the interview. This ensures that respondents have the freedom to bring up the topics that are relevant to them rather than feel like they are constrained to answer you narrowly. For example, refrain from asking about particular emotions until these have come up previously—don’t lead with them. Often, your more particular questions will emerge only during the course of the interview, tailored to what is emerging in conversation.

Once you have a set of questions, read through them aloud and imagine you are being asked the same questions. Does the set of questions have a natural flow? Would you be willing to answer the very first question to a total stranger? Does your sequence establish facts and experiences before moving on to opinions and values? Did you include prefatory statements, where necessary; transitions; and other announcements? These can be as simple as “Hey, we talked a lot about your experiences as a barista while in college.… Now I am turning to something completely different: how you managed friendships in college.” That is an abrupt transition, but it has been softened by your acknowledgment of that.

Probes and Flexibility

Once you have the interview guide, you will also want to leave room for probes and follow-up questions. As in the sample probe included here, you can write out the obvious probes and follow-up questions in advance. You might not need them, as your respondent might anticipate them and include full responses to the original question. Or you might need to tailor them to how your respondent answered the question. Some common probes and follow-up questions include asking for more details (When did that happen? Who else was there?), asking for elaboration (Could you say more about that?), asking for clarification (Does that mean what I think it means or something else? I understand what you mean, but someone else reading the transcript might not), and asking for contrast or comparison (How did this experience compare with last year’s event?). “Probing is a skill that comes from knowing what to look for in the interview, listening carefully to what is being said and what is not said, and being sensitive to the feedback needs of the person being interviewed” ( Patton 2002:374 ). It takes work! And energy. I and many other interviewers I know report feeling emotionally and even physically drained after conducting an interview. You are tasked with active listening and rearranging your interview guide as needed on the fly. If you only ask the questions written down in your interview guide with no deviations, you are doing it wrong. [2]

The Final Question

Every interview guide should include a very open-ended final question that allows for the respondent to say whatever it is they have been dying to tell you but you’ve forgotten to ask. About half the time they are tired too and will tell you they have nothing else to say. But incredibly, some of the most honest and complete responses take place here, at the end of a long interview. You have to realize that the person being interviewed is often discovering things about themselves as they talk to you and that this process of discovery can lead to new insights for them. Making space at the end is therefore crucial. Be sure you convey that you actually do want them to tell you more, that the offer of “anything else?” is not read as an empty convention where the polite response is no. Here is where you can pull from that active listening and tailor the final question to the particular person. For example, “I’ve asked you a lot of questions about what it was like to live through that wildfire. I’m wondering if there is anything I’ve forgotten to ask, especially because I haven’t had that experience myself” is a much more inviting final question than “Great. Anything you want to add?” It’s also helpful to convey to the person that you have the time to listen to their full answer, even if the allotted time is at the end. After all, there are no more questions to ask, so the respondent knows exactly how much time is left. Do them the courtesy of listening to them!

Conducting the Interview

Once you have your interview guide, you are on your way to conducting your first interview. I always practice my interview guide with a friend or family member. I do this even when the questions don’t make perfect sense for them, as it still helps me realize which questions make no sense, are poorly worded (too academic), or don’t follow sequentially. I also practice the routine I will use for interviewing, which goes something like this:

• Introduce myself and reintroduce the study
• Provide consent form and ask them to sign and retain/return copy
• Ask if they have any questions about the study before we begin
• Ask if I can begin recording
• Ask questions (from interview guide)
• Turn off the recording device
• Ask if they are willing to fill out my demographic questionnaire
• Collect questionnaire and, without looking at the answers, place in same folder as signed consent form
• Thank them and depart

A note on remote interviewing: Interviews have traditionally been conducted face-to-face in a private or quiet public setting. You don’t want a lot of background noise, as this will make transcriptions difficult. During the recent global pandemic, many interviewers, myself included, learned the benefits of interviewing remotely. Although face-to-face is still preferable for many reasons, Zoom interviewing is not a bad alternative, and it does allow more interviews across great distances. Zoom also includes automatic transcription, which significantly cuts down on the time it normally takes to convert our conversations into “data” to be analyzed. These automatic transcriptions are not perfect, however, and you will still need to listen to the recording and clarify and clean up the transcription. Nor do automatic transcriptions include notations of body language or change of tone, which you may want to include. When interviewing remotely, you will want to collect the consent form before you meet: ask them to read, sign, and return it as an email attachment. I think it is better to ask for the demographic questionnaire after the interview, but because some respondents may never return it then, it is probably best to ask for this at the same time as the consent form, in advance of the interview.

What should you bring to the interview? I would recommend bringing two copies of the consent form (one for you and one for the respondent), a demographic questionnaire, a manila folder in which to place the signed consent form and filled-out demographic questionnaire, a printed copy of your interview guide (I print with three-inch right margins so I can jot down notes on the page next to relevant questions), a pen, a recording device, and water.

After the interview, you will want to secure the signed consent form in a locked filing cabinet (if in print) or a password-protected folder on your computer. Using Excel or a similar program that allows tables/spreadsheets, create an identifying number for your interview that links to the consent form without using the name of your respondent. For example, let’s say that I conduct interviews with US politicians, and the first person I meet with is George W. Bush. I will assign the transcription the number “INT#001” and add it to the signed consent form. [3] The signed consent form goes into a locked filing cabinet, and I never use the name “George W. Bush” again. I take the information from the demographic sheet, open my Excel spreadsheet, and add the relevant information in separate columns for the row INT#001: White, male, Republican. When I interview Bill Clinton as my second interview, I include a second row: INT#002: White, male, Democrat. And so on. The only link to the actual name of the respondent and this information is the fact that the consent form (unavailable to anyone but me) has stamped on it the interview number.

Many students get very nervous before their first interview. Actually, many of us are always nervous before the interview! But do not worry—this is normal, and it does pass. Chances are, you will be pleasantly surprised at how comfortable it begins to feel. These “purposeful conversations” are often a delight for both participants. This is not to say that sometimes things go wrong. I often have my students practice several “bad scenarios” (e.g., a respondent that you cannot get to open up; a respondent who is too talkative and dominates the conversation, steering it away from the topics you are interested in; emotions that completely take over; or shocking disclosures you are ill-prepared to handle), but most of the time, things go quite well. Be prepared for the unexpected, but know that the reason interviews are so popular as a technique of data collection is that they are usually richly rewarding for both participants.

One thing that I stress to my methods students and remind myself about is that interviews are still conversations between people. If there’s something you might feel uncomfortable asking someone about in a “normal” conversation, you will likely also feel a bit of discomfort asking it in an interview. Maybe more importantly, your respondent may feel uncomfortable. Social research—especially about inequality—can be uncomfortable. And it’s easy to slip into an abstract, intellectualized, or removed perspective as an interviewer. This is one reason trying out interview questions is important. Another is that sometimes the question sounds good in your head but doesn’t work as well out loud in practice. I learned this the hard way when a respondent asked me how I would answer the question I had just posed, and I realized that not only did I not really know how I would answer it, but I also wasn’t quite as sure I knew what I was asking as I had thought.

—Elizabeth M. Lee, Associate Professor of Sociology at Saint Joseph’s University, author of Class and Campus Life , and co-author of Geographies of Campus Inequality

How Many Interviews?

Your research design has included a targeted number of interviews and a recruitment plan (see chapter 5). Follow your plan, but remember that “ saturation ” is your goal. You interview as many people as you can until you reach a point at which you are no longer surprised by what they tell you. This means not that no one after your first twenty interviews will have surprising, interesting stories to tell you but rather that the picture you are forming about the phenomenon of interest to you from a research perspective has come into focus, and none of the interviews are substantially refocusing that picture. That is when you should stop collecting interviews. Note that to know when you have reached this, you will need to read your transcripts as you go. More about this in chapters 18 and 19.

Your Final Product: The Ideal Interview Transcript

A good interview transcript will demonstrate a subtly controlled conversation by the skillful interviewer. In general, you want to see replies that are about one paragraph long, not short sentences and not running on for several pages. Although it is sometimes necessary to follow respondents down tangents, it is also often necessary to pull them back to the questions that form the basis of your research study. This is not really a free conversation, although it may feel like that to the person you are interviewing.

Final Tips from an Interview Master

Annette Lareau is arguably one of the masters of the trade. In Listening to People , she provides several guidelines for good interviews and then offers a detailed example of an interview gone wrong and how it could be addressed (please see the “Further Readings” at the end of this chapter). Here is an abbreviated version of her set of guidelines: (1) interview respondents who are experts on the subjects of most interest to you (as a corollary, don’t ask people about things they don’t know); (2) listen carefully and talk as little as possible; (3) keep in mind what you want to know and why you want to know it; (4) be a proactive interviewer (subtly guide the conversation); (5) assure respondents that there aren’t any right or wrong answers; (6) use the respondent’s own words to probe further (this both allows you to accurately identify what you heard and pushes the respondent to explain further); (7) reuse effective probes (don’t reinvent the wheel as you go—if repeating the words back works, do it again and again); (8) focus on learning the subjective meanings that events or experiences have for a respondent; (9) don’t be afraid to ask a question that draws on your own knowledge (unlike trial lawyers who are trained never to ask a question for which they don’t already know the answer, sometimes it’s worth it to ask risky questions based on your hypotheses or just plain hunches); (10) keep thinking while you are listening (so difficult…and important); (11) return to a theme raised by a respondent if you want further information; (12) be mindful of power inequalities (and never ever coerce a respondent to continue the interview if they want out); (13) take control with overly talkative respondents; (14) expect overly succinct responses, and develop strategies for probing further; (15) balance digging deep and moving on; (16) develop a plan to deflect questions (e.g., let them know you are happy to answer any questions at the end of the interview, but you don’t want to take time away from them now); and at the end, (17) check to see whether you have asked all your questions. You don’t always have to ask everyone the same set of questions, but if there is a big area you have forgotten to cover, now is the time to recover ( Lareau 2021:93–103 ).

Sample: Demographic Questionnaire

ASA Taskforce on First-Generation and Working-Class Persons in Sociology – Class Effects on Career Success

Supplementary Demographic Questionnaire

Thank you for your participation in this interview project. We would like to collect a few pieces of key demographic information from you to supplement our analyses. Your answers to these questions will be kept confidential and stored by ID number. All of your responses here are entirely voluntary!

What best captures your race/ethnicity? (please check any/all that apply)

• White (Non Hispanic/Latina/o/x)
• Black or African American
• Hispanic, Latino/a/x of Spanish
• Asian or Asian American
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Middle Eastern or North African
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
• Other : (Please write in: ________________)

What is your current position?

• Grad Student
• Full Professor

Please check any and all of the following that apply to you:

• I identify as a working-class academic
• I was the first in my family to graduate from college
• I grew up poor

What best reflects your gender?

• Transgender female/Transgender woman
• Transgender male/Transgender man
• Gender queer/ Gender nonconforming

Anything else you would like us to know about you?

Example: Interview Guide

In this example, follow-up prompts are italicized.  Note the sequence of questions.  That second question often elicits an entire life history , answering several later questions in advance.

Introduction Script/Question

Thank you for participating in our survey of ASA members who identify as first-generation or working-class.  As you may have heard, ASA has sponsored a taskforce on first-generation and working-class persons in sociology and we are interested in hearing from those who so identify.  Your participation in this interview will help advance our knowledge in this area.

• The first thing we would like to as you is why you have volunteered to be part of this study? What does it mean to you be first-gen or working class?  Why were you willing to be interviewed?
• How did you decide to become a sociologist?
• Can you tell me a little bit about where you grew up? ( prompts: what did your parent(s) do for a living?  What kind of high school did you attend?)
• Has this identity been salient to your experience? (how? How much?)
• How welcoming was your grad program? Your first academic employer?
• Why did you decide to pursue sociology at the graduate level?
• Did you experience culture shock in college? In graduate school?
• Has your FGWC status shaped how you’ve thought about where you went to school? debt? etc?
• Were you mentored? How did this work (not work)?  How might it?
• What did you consider when deciding where to go to grad school? Where to apply for your first position?
• What, to you, is a mark of career success? Have you achieved that success?  What has helped or hindered your pursuit of success?
• Do you think sociology, as a field, cares about prestige?
• Let’s talk a little bit about intersectionality. How does being first-gen/working class work alongside other identities that are important to you?
• What do your friends and family think about your career? Have you had any difficulty relating to family members or past friends since becoming highly educated?
• Do you have any debt from college/grad school? Are you concerned about this?  Could you explain more about how you paid for college/grad school?  (here, include assistance from family, fellowships, scholarships, etc.)
• (You’ve mentioned issues or obstacles you had because of your background.) What could have helped?  Or, who or what did? Can you think of fortuitous moments in your career?
• Do you have any regrets about the path you took?
• Is there anything else you would like to add? Anything that the Taskforce should take note of, that we did not ask you about here?

Further Readings

Britten, Nicky. 1995. “Qualitative Interviews in Medical Research.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 31(6999):251–253. A good basic overview of interviewing particularly useful for students of public health and medical research generally.

Corbin, Juliet, and Janice M. Morse. 2003. “The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues of Reciprocity and Risks When Dealing with Sensitive Topics.” Qualitative Inquiry 9(3):335–354. Weighs the potential benefits and harms of conducting interviews on topics that may cause emotional distress. Argues that the researcher’s skills and code of ethics should ensure that the interviewing process provides more of a benefit to both participant and researcher than a harm to the former.

Gerson, Kathleen, and Sarah Damaske. 2020. The Science and Art of Interviewing . New York: Oxford University Press. A useful guidebook/textbook for both undergraduates and graduate students, written by sociologists.

Kvale, Steiner. 2007. Doing Interviews . London: SAGE. An easy-to-follow guide to conducting and analyzing interviews by psychologists.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. “Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37(2):153–171. Written as a response to various debates surrounding the relative value of interview-based studies and ethnographic studies defending the particular strengths of interviewing. This is a must-read article for anyone seriously engaging in qualitative research!

Pugh, Allison J. 2013. “What Good Are Interviews for Thinking about Culture? Demystifying Interpretive Analysis.” American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1(1):42–68. Another defense of interviewing written against those who champion ethnographic methods as superior, particularly in the area of studying culture. A classic.

Rapley, Timothy John. 2001. “The ‘Artfulness’ of Open-Ended Interviewing: Some considerations in analyzing interviews.” Qualitative Research 1(3):303–323. Argues for the importance of “local context” of data production (the relationship built between interviewer and interviewee, for example) in properly analyzing interview data.

Weiss, Robert S. 1995. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies . New York: Simon and Schuster. A classic and well-regarded textbook on interviewing. Because Weiss has extensive experience conducting surveys, he contrasts the qualitative interview with the survey questionnaire well; particularly useful for those trained in the latter.

• I say “normally” because how people understand their various identities can itself be an expansive topic of inquiry. Here, I am merely talking about collecting otherwise unexamined demographic data, similar to how we ask people to check boxes on surveys. ↵
• Again, this applies to “semistructured in-depth interviewing.” When conducting standardized questionnaires, you will want to ask each question exactly as written, without deviations! ↵
• I always include “INT” in the number because I sometimes have other kinds of data with their own numbering: FG#001 would mean the first focus group, for example. I also always include three-digit spaces, as this allows for up to 999 interviews (or, more realistically, allows for me to interview up to one hundred persons without having to reset my numbering system). ↵

A method of data collection in which the researcher asks the participant questions; the answers to these questions are often recorded and transcribed verbatim. There are many different kinds of interviews - see also semistructured interview , structured interview , and unstructured interview .

A document listing key questions and question areas for use during an interview.  It is used most often for semi-structured interviews.  A good interview guide may have no more than ten primary questions for two hours of interviewing, but these ten questions will be supplemented by probes and relevant follow-ups throughout the interview.  Most IRBs require the inclusion of the interview guide in applications for review.  See also interview and  semi-structured interview .

A data-collection method that relies on casual, conversational, and informal interviewing.  Despite its apparent conversational nature, the researcher usually has a set of particular questions or question areas in mind but allows the interview to unfold spontaneously.  This is a common data-collection technique among ethnographers.  Compare to the semi-structured or in-depth interview .

A form of interview that follows a standard guide of questions asked, although the order of the questions may change to match the particular needs of each individual interview subject, and probing “follow-up” questions are often added during the course of the interview.  The semi-structured interview is the primary form of interviewing used by qualitative researchers in the social sciences.  It is sometimes referred to as an “in-depth” interview.  See also interview and  interview guide .

The cluster of data-collection tools and techniques that involve observing interactions between people, the behaviors, and practices of individuals (sometimes in contrast to what they say about how they act and behave), and cultures in context.  Observational methods are the key tools employed by ethnographers and Grounded Theory .

Follow-up questions used in a semi-structured interview  to elicit further elaboration.  Suggested prompts can be included in the interview guide  to be used/deployed depending on how the initial question was answered or if the topic of the prompt does not emerge spontaneously.

A form of interview that follows a strict set of questions, asked in a particular order, for all interview subjects.  The questions are also the kind that elicits short answers, and the data is more “informative” than probing.  This is often used in mixed-methods studies, accompanying a survey instrument.  Because there is no room for nuance or the exploration of meaning in structured interviews, qualitative researchers tend to employ semi-structured interviews instead.  See also interview.

The point at which you can conclude data collection because every person you are interviewing, the interaction you are observing, or content you are analyzing merely confirms what you have already noted.  Achieving saturation is often used as the justification for the final sample size.

An interview variant in which a person’s life story is elicited in a narrative form.  Turning points and key themes are established by the researcher and used as data points for further analysis.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Qualitative Research: Observation

• Getting Started
• Focus Groups
• Observation
• Case Studies
• Data Collection
• Cleaning Text
• Analysis Tools
• Institutional Review

Participant Observation

Photo: https://slideplayer.com/slide/4599875/

Field Guide

• Participant Observation Field Guide

What is an observation?

A way to gather data by watching people, events, or noting physical characteristics in their natural setting. Observations can be overt (subjects know they are being observed) or covert (do not know they are being watched).

• Researcher becomes a participant in the culture or context being observed.
• Requires researcher to be accepted as part of culture being observed in order for success

Direct Observation

• Researcher strives to be as unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias the observations; more detached.
• Technology can be useful (i.e video, audiorecording).

Indirect Observation

• Results of an interaction, process or behavior are observed (for example, measuring the amount of plate waste left by students in a school cafeteria to determine whether a new food is acceptable to them).

Suggested Readings and Film

• Born into Brothels . (2004) Oscar winning documentary, an example of participatory observation, portrays the life of children born to prostitutes in Calcutta. New York-based photographer Zana Briski gave cameras to the children of prostitutes and taught them photography
• Davies, J. P., & Spencer, D. (2010).  Emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011).  Participant observation : A guide for fieldworkers .   Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Reinharz, S. (2011).  Observing the observer: Understanding our selves in field research . NY: Oxford University Press.
• Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (2013).  Essential ethnographic methods: A mixed methods approach . Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
• Skinner, J. (2012).  The interview: An ethnographic approach . NY: Berg.
• << Previous: Focus Groups
• Next: Case Studies >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:13 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/qualitative-research

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 22 March 2008

Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups

• P. Gill 1 ,
• K. Stewart 2 ,
• E. Treasure 3 &
• B. Chadwick 4  

British Dental Journal volume  204 ,  pages 291–295 ( 2008 ) Cite this article

1.69m Accesses

1040 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

Interviews and focus groups are the most common methods of data collection used in qualitative healthcare research

Interviews can be used to explore the views, experiences, beliefs and motivations of individual participants

Focus group use group dynamics to generate qualitative data

Qualitative research in dentistry

Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research

Analysing and presenting qualitative data

This paper explores the most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. The paper examines each method in detail, focusing on how they work in practice, when their use is appropriate and what they can offer dentistry. Examples of empirical studies that have used interviews or focus groups are also provided.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology, introduction.

Having explored the nature and purpose of qualitative research in the previous paper, this paper explores methods of data collection used in qualitative research. There are a variety of methods of data collection in qualitative research, including observations, textual or visual analysis (eg from books or videos) and interviews (individual or group). 1 However, the most common methods used, particularly in healthcare research, are interviews and focus groups. 2 , 3

The purpose of this paper is to explore these two methods in more detail, in particular how they work in practice, the purpose of each, when their use is appropriate and what they can offer dental research.

Qualitative research interviews

There are three fundamental types of research interviews: structured, semi-structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are, essentially, verbally administered questionnaires, in which a list of predetermined questions are asked, with little or no variation and with no scope for follow-up questions to responses that warrant further elaboration. Consequently, they are relatively quick and easy to administer and may be of particular use if clarification of certain questions are required or if there are likely to be literacy or numeracy problems with the respondents. However, by their very nature, they only allow for limited participant responses and are, therefore, of little use if 'depth' is required.

Conversely, unstructured interviews do not reflect any preconceived theories or ideas and are performed with little or no organisation. 4 Such an interview may simply start with an opening question such as 'Can you tell me about your experience of visiting the dentist?' and will then progress based, primarily, upon the initial response. Unstructured interviews are usually very time-consuming (often lasting several hours) and can be difficult to manage, and to participate in, as the lack of predetermined interview questions provides little guidance on what to talk about (which many participants find confusing and unhelpful). Their use is, therefore, generally only considered where significant 'depth' is required, or where virtually nothing is known about the subject area (or a different perspective of a known subject area is required).

Semi-structured interviews consist of several key questions that help to define the areas to be explored, but also allows the interviewer or interviewee to diverge in order to pursue an idea or response in more detail. 2 This interview format is used most frequently in healthcare, as it provides participants with some guidance on what to talk about, which many find helpful. The flexibility of this approach, particularly compared to structured interviews, also allows for the discovery or elaboration of information that is important to participants but may not have previously been thought of as pertinent by the research team.

For example, in a recent dental public heath study, 5 school children in Cardiff, UK were interviewed about their food choices and preferences. A key finding that emerged from semi-structured interviews, which was not previously thought to be as highly influential as the data subsequently confirmed, was the significance of peer-pressure in influencing children's food choices and preferences. This finding was also established primarily through follow-up questioning (eg probing interesting responses with follow-up questions, such as 'Can you tell me a bit more about that?') and, therefore, may not have emerged in the same way, if at all, if asked as a predetermined question.

The purpose of research interviews

The purpose of the research interview is to explore the views, experiences, beliefs and/or motivations of individuals on specific matters (eg factors that influence their attendance at the dentist). Qualitative methods, such as interviews, are believed to provide a 'deeper' understanding of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative methods, such as questionnaires. 1 Interviews are, therefore, most appropriate where little is already known about the study phenomenon or where detailed insights are required from individual participants. They are also particularly appropriate for exploring sensitive topics, where participants may not want to talk about such issues in a group environment.

Examples of dental studies that have collected data using interviews are 'Examining the psychosocial process involved in regular dental attendance' 6 and 'Exploring factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies'. 7 Gibson et al . 6 provided an improved understanding of factors that influenced people's regular attendance with their dentist. The study by Kay and Blinkhorn 7 provided a detailed insight into factors that influenced GDPs' decision making in relation to treatment choices. The study found that dentists' clinical decisions about treatments were not necessarily related to pathology or treatment options, as was perhaps initially thought, but also involved discussions with patients, patients' values and dentists' feelings of self esteem and conscience.

There are many similarities between clinical encounters and research interviews, in that both employ similar interpersonal skills, such as questioning, conversing and listening. However, there are also some fundamental differences between the two, such as the purpose of the encounter, reasons for participating, roles of the people involved and how the interview is conducted and recorded. 8

The primary purpose of clinical encounters is for the dentist to ask the patient questions in order to acquire sufficient information to inform decision making and treatment options. However, the constraints of most consultations are such that any open-ended questioning needs to be brought to a conclusion within a fairly short time. 2 In contrast, the fundamental purpose of the research interview is to listen attentively to what respondents have to say, in order to acquire more knowledge about the study topic. 9 Unlike the clinical encounter, it is not to intentionally offer any form of help or advice, which many researchers have neither the training nor the time for. Research interviewing therefore requires a different approach and a different range of skills.

The interview

When designing an interview schedule it is imperative to ask questions that are likely to yield as much information about the study phenomenon as possible and also be able to address the aims and objectives of the research. In a qualitative interview, good questions should be open-ended (ie, require more than a yes/no answer), neutral, sensitive and understandable. 2 It is usually best to start with questions that participants can answer easily and then proceed to more difficult or sensitive topics. 2 This can help put respondents at ease, build up confidence and rapport and often generates rich data that subsequently develops the interview further.

As in any research, it is often wise to first pilot the interview schedule on several respondents prior to data collection proper. 8 This allows the research team to establish if the schedule is clear, understandable and capable of answering the research questions, and if, therefore, any changes to the interview schedule are required.

The length of interviews varies depending on the topic, researcher and participant. However, on average, healthcare interviews last 20-60 minutes. Interviews can be performed on a one-off or, if change over time is of interest, repeated basis, 4 for example exploring the psychosocial impact of oral trauma on participants and their subsequent experiences of cosmetic dental surgery.

Developing the interview

Before an interview takes place, respondents should be informed about the study details and given assurance about ethical principles, such as anonymity and confidentiality. 2 This gives respondents some idea of what to expect from the interview, increases the likelihood of honesty and is also a fundamental aspect of the informed consent process.

Wherever possible, interviews should be conducted in areas free from distractions and at times and locations that are most suitable for participants. For many this may be at their own home in the evenings. Whilst researchers may have less control over the home environment, familiarity may help the respondent to relax and result in a more productive interview. 9 Establishing rapport with participants prior to the interview is also important as this can also have a positive effect on the subsequent development of the interview.

When conducting the actual interview it is prudent for the interviewer to familiarise themselves with the interview schedule, so that the process appears more natural and less rehearsed. However, to ensure that the interview is as productive as possible, researchers must possess a repertoire of skills and techniques to ensure that comprehensive and representative data are collected during the interview. 10 One of the most important skills is the ability to listen attentively to what is being said, so that participants are able to recount their experiences as fully as possible, without unnecessary interruptions.

Other important skills include adopting open and emotionally neutral body language, nodding, smiling, looking interested and making encouraging noises (eg, 'Mmmm') during the interview. 2 The strategic use of silence, if used appropriately, can also be highly effective at getting respondents to contemplate their responses, talk more, elaborate or clarify particular issues. Other techniques that can be used to develop the interview further include reflecting on remarks made by participants (eg, 'Pain?') and probing remarks ('When you said you were afraid of going to the dentist what did you mean?'). 9 Where appropriate, it is also wise to seek clarification from respondents if it is unclear what they mean. The use of 'leading' or 'loaded' questions that may unduly influence responses should always be avoided (eg, 'So you think dental surgery waiting rooms are frightening?' rather than 'How do you find the waiting room at the dentists?').

At the end of the interview it is important to thank participants for their time and ask them if there is anything they would like to add. This gives respondents an opportunity to deal with issues that they have thought about, or think are important but have not been dealt with by the interviewer. 9 This can often lead to the discovery of new, unanticipated information. Respondents should also be debriefed about the study after the interview has finished.

All interviews should be tape recorded and transcribed verbatim afterwards, as this protects against bias and provides a permanent record of what was and was not said. 8 It is often also helpful to make 'field notes' during and immediately after each interview about observations, thoughts and ideas about the interview, as this can help in data analysis process. 4 , 8

Focus groups

Focus groups share many common features with less structured interviews, but there is more to them than merely collecting similar data from many participants at once. A focus group is a group discussion on a particular topic organised for research purposes. This discussion is guided, monitored and recorded by a researcher (sometimes called a moderator or facilitator). 11 , 12

Focus groups were first used as a research method in market research, originating in the 1940s in the work of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University. Eventually the success of focus groups as a marketing tool in the private sector resulted in its use in public sector marketing, such as the assessment of the impact of health education campaigns. 13 However, focus group techniques, as used in public and private sectors, have diverged over time. Therefore, in this paper, we seek to describe focus groups as they are used in academic research.

When focus groups are used

Focus groups are used for generating information on collective views, and the meanings that lie behind those views. They are also useful in generating a rich understanding of participants' experiences and beliefs. 12 Suggested criteria for using focus groups include: 13

As a standalone method, for research relating to group norms, meanings and processes

In a multi-method design, to explore a topic or collect group language or narratives to be used in later stages

To clarify, extend, qualify or challenge data collected through other methods

To feedback results to research participants.

Morgan 12 suggests that focus groups should be avoided according to the following criteria:

If listening to participants' views generates expectations for the outcome of the research that can not be fulfilled

If participants are uneasy with each other, and will therefore not discuss their feelings and opinions openly

If the topic of interest to the researcher is not a topic the participants can or wish to discuss

If statistical data is required. Focus groups give depth and insight, but cannot produce useful numerical results.

Conducting focus groups: group composition and size

The composition of a focus group needs great care to get the best quality of discussion. There is no 'best' solution to group composition, and group mix will always impact on the data, according to things such as the mix of ages, sexes and social professional statuses of the participants. What is important is that the researcher gives due consideration to the impact of group mix (eg, how the group may interact with each other) before the focus group proceeds. 14

Interaction is key to a successful focus group. Sometimes this means a pre-existing group interacts best for research purposes, and sometimes stranger groups. Pre-existing groups may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and enjoy a comfort and familiarity which facilitates discussion or the ability to challenge each other comfortably. In health settings, pre-existing groups can overcome issues relating to disclosure of potentially stigmatising status which people may find uncomfortable in stranger groups (conversely there may be situations where disclosure is more comfortable in stranger groups). In other research projects it may be decided that stranger groups will be able to speak more freely without fear of repercussion, and challenges to other participants may be more challenging and probing, leading to richer data. 13

Group size is an important consideration in focus group research. Stewart and Shamdasani 14 suggest that it is better to slightly over-recruit for a focus group and potentially manage a slightly larger group, than under-recruit and risk having to cancel the session or having an unsatisfactory discussion. They advise that each group will probably have two non-attenders. The optimum size for a focus group is six to eight participants (excluding researchers), but focus groups can work successfully with as few as three and as many as 14 participants. Small groups risk limited discussion occurring, while large groups can be chaotic, hard to manage for the moderator and frustrating for participants who feel they get insufficient opportunities to speak. 13

Preparing an interview schedule

Like research interviews, the interview schedule for focus groups is often no more structured than a loose schedule of topics to be discussed. However, in preparing an interview schedule for focus groups, Stewart and Shamdasani 14 suggest two general principles:

Questions should move from general to more specific questions

Question order should be relative to importance of issues in the research agenda.

There can, however, be some conflict between these two principles, and trade offs are often needed, although often discussions will take on a life of their own, which will influence or determine the order in which issues are covered. Usually, less than a dozen predetermined questions are needed and, as with research interviews, the researcher will also probe and expand on issues according to the discussion.

Moderating a focus group looks easy when done well, but requires a complex set of skills, which are related to the following principles: 15

Participants have valuable views and the ability to respond actively, positively and respectfully. Such an approach is not simply a courtesy, but will encourage fruitful discussions

Moderating without participating: a moderator must guide a discussion rather than join in with it. Expressing one's own views tends to give participants cues as to what to say (introducing bias), rather than the confidence to be open and honest about their own views

Be prepared for views that may be unpalatably critical of a topic which may be important to you

It is important to recognise that researchers' individual characteristics mean that no one person will always be suitable to moderate any kind of group. Sometimes the characteristics that suit a moderator for one group will inhibit discussion in another

Be yourself. If the moderator is comfortable and natural, participants will feel relaxed.

The moderator should facilitate group discussion, keeping it focussed without leading it. They should also be able to prevent the discussion being dominated by one member (for example, by emphasising at the outset the importance of hearing a range of views), ensure that all participants have ample opportunity to contribute, allow differences of opinions to be discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants. 13

Other relevant factors

The venue for a focus group is important and should, ideally, be accessible, comfortable, private, quiet and free from distractions. 13 However, while a central location, such as the participants' workplace or school, may encourage attendance, the venue may affect participants' behaviour. For example, in a school setting, pupils may behave like pupils, and in clinical settings, participants may be affected by any anxieties that affect them when they attend in a patient role.

Focus groups are usually recorded, often observed (by a researcher other than the moderator, whose role is to observe the interaction of the group to enhance analysis) and sometimes videotaped. At the start of a focus group, a moderator should acknowledge the presence of the audio recording equipment, assure participants of confidentiality and give people the opportunity to withdraw if they are uncomfortable with being taped. 14

A good quality multi-directional external microphone is recommended for the recording of focus groups, as internal microphones are rarely good enough to cope with the variation in volume of different speakers. 13 If observers are present, they should be introduced to participants as someone who is just there to observe, and sit away from the discussion. 14 Videotaping will require more than one camera to capture the whole group, as well as additional operational personnel in the room. This is, therefore, very obtrusive, which can affect the spontaneity of the group and in a focus group does not usually yield enough additional information that could not be captured by an observer to make videotaping worthwhile. 15

The systematic analysis of focus group transcripts is crucial. However, the transcription of focus groups is more complex and time consuming than in one-to-one interviews, and each hour of audio can take up to eight hours to transcribe and generate approximately 100 pages of text. Recordings should be transcribed verbatim and also speakers should be identified in a way that makes it possible to follow the contributions of each individual. Sometimes observational notes also need to be described in the transcripts in order for them to make sense.

The analysis of qualitative data is explored in the final paper of this series. However, it is important to note that the analysis of focus group data is different from other qualitative data because of their interactive nature, and this needs to be taken into consideration during analysis. The importance of the context of other speakers is essential to the understanding of individual contributions. 13 For example, in a group situation, participants will often challenge each other and justify their remarks because of the group setting, in a way that perhaps they would not in a one-to-one interview. The analysis of focus group data must therefore take account of the group dynamics that have generated remarks.

Focus groups in dental research

Focus groups are used increasingly in dental research, on a diverse range of topics, 16 illuminating a number of areas relating to patients, dental services and the dental profession. Addressing a special needs population difficult to access and sample through quantitative measures, Robinson et al . 17 used focus groups to investigate the oral health-related attitudes of drug users, exploring the priorities, understandings and barriers to care they encounter. Newton et al . 18 used focus groups to explore barriers to services among minority ethnic groups, highlighting for the first time differences between minority ethnic groups. Demonstrating the use of the method with professional groups as subjects in dental research, Gussy et al . 19 explored the barriers to and possible strategies for developing a shared approach in prevention of caries among pre-schoolers. This mixed method study was very important as the qualitative element was able to explain why the clinical trial failed, and this understanding may help researchers improve on the quantitative aspect of future studies, as well as making a valuable academic contribution in its own right.

Interviews and focus groups remain the most common methods of data collection in qualitative research, and are now being used with increasing frequency in dental research, particularly to access areas not amendable to quantitative methods and/or where depth, insight and understanding of particular phenomena are required. The examples of dental studies that have employed these methods also help to demonstrate the range of research contexts to which interview and focus group research can make a useful contribution. The continued employment of these methods can further strengthen many areas of dentally related work.

Silverman D . Doing qualitative research . London: Sage Publications, 2000.

Google Scholar  

Britten N . Qualitative interviews in healthcare. In Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative research in health care . 2nd ed. pp 11–19. London: BMJ Books, 1999.

Legard R, Keegan J, Ward K . In-depth interviews. In Ritchie J, Lewis J (eds) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers . pp 139–169. London: Sage Publications, 2003.

May K M . Interview techniques in qualitative research: concerns and challenges. In Morse J M (ed) Qualitative nursing research . pp 187–201. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1991.

Stewart K, Gill P, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Understanding about food among 6-11 year olds in South Wales. Food Culture Society 2006; 9 : 317–333.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gibson B, Drenna J, Hanna S, Freeman R . An exploratory qualitative study examining the social and psychological processes involved in regular dental attendance. J Public Health Dent 2000; 60 : 5–11.

Kay E J, Blinkhorn A S . A qualitative investigation of factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies. Br Dent J 1996; 180 : 171–176.

Pontin D . Interviews. In Cormack D F S (ed) The research process in nursing . 4th ed. pp 289–298. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: principles in practice . 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1995.

Kitzinger J . The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn 1994; 16 : 103–121.

Morgan D L . The focus group guide book . London: Sage Publications, 1998.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K . Focus groups in social research . London: Sage Publications, 2001.

Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M . Focus groups. Theory and practice . London: Sage Publications, 1990.

Krueger R A . Moderating focus groups . London: Sage Publications, 1998.

Chestnutt I G, Robson K F. Focus groups – what are they? Dent Update 2002; 28 : 189–192.

Robinson P G, Acquah S, Gibson B . Drug users: oral health related attitudes and behaviours. Br Dent J 2005; 198 : 219–224.

Newton J T, Thorogood N, Bhavnani V, Pitt J, Gibbons D E, Gelbier S . Barriers to the use of dental services by individuals from minority ethnic communities living in the United Kingdom: findings from focus groups. Primary Dent Care 2001; 8 : 157–161.

Gussy M G, Waters E, Kilpatrick M . A qualitative study exploring barriers to a model of shared care for pre-school children's oral health. Br Dent J 2006; 201 : 165–170.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Health, Sport and Science, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL,

Research Fellow, Academic Unit of Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2AA,

Dean and Professor of Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, Dental Health and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY,

E. Treasure

Professor of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dental Health and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY,

B. Chadwick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Additional information

Refereed paper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. et al. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 204 , 291–295 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Download citation

Published : 22 March 2008

Issue Date : 22 March 2008

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Imprisonment for south ethiopian people living with hiv presents a double health burden: lived experiences of prisoners.

• Terefe Gone Fuge
• George Tsourtos
• Emma R Miller

BMC Health Services Research (2024)

Employees’ experiences of a large-scale implementation in a public care setting: a novel mixed-method approach to content analysis

• My Säfström
• Ulrika Löfkvist

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Heteronormative biases and distinctive experiences with prostate cancer among men who have sex with men: a qualitative focus group study

• Evan Panken
• Noah Frydenlund
• Channa Amarasekera

BMC Urology (2024)

The experience of the irreligious conversion: analysis of the spiritual transition toward skepticism from traditional religions in young adults residing in Santiago, Chile

• Consuelo Calderón Villarreal

SN Social Sciences (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Help & FAQ

Observation and Interviewing: Options and Choices in Qualitative Research

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review

T1 - Observation and Interviewing

T2 - Options and Choices in Qualitative Research

AU - Horowitz, Ruth

AU - Gerson, Kathleen

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

BT - Qualitative Research

A2 - May, Tim

CY - London

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik aspers.

1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

2 Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

3 Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Biographies

is professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, Uppsala University and Universität St. Gallen. His main focus is economic sociology, and in particular, markets. He has published numerous articles and books, including Orderly Fashion (Princeton University Press 2010), Markets (Polity Press 2011) and Re-Imagining Economic Sociology (edited with N. Dodd, Oxford University Press 2015). His book Ethnographic Methods (in Swedish) has already gone through several editions.

is associate professor of sociology at the Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger. His research has been published in journals such as Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Theory, Teaching Sociology, and Music and Arts in Action. As an ethnographer he is working on a book on he social world of big-wave surfing.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .

Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .

• Åkerström M. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):10–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Alvesson M, Kärreman D. Qualitative research and theory development . Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
• Atkinson P. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (3):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Social Problems. 1966; 14 (3):239–247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Sociological work. Method and substance. New Brunswick: Transaction Books; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. The epistemology of qualitative research. In: Richard J, Anne C, Shweder RA, editors. Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker H, Geer B, Hughes E, Strauss A. Boys in White, student culture in medical school. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berezin M. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):141–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
• Biernacki R. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady H, Collier D, Seawright J. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In: Henry B, David C, editors. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 2004. pp. 3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown AP. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research. 2010; 10 (2):229–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
• Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidsson D. The myth of the subjective. In: Davidsson D, editor. Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. pp. 39–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2003. pp. 1–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2005. pp. 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, editor. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esterberg KG. Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
• Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
• Fine GA, Hancock BH. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research. 2017; 17 (2):260–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine GA, Hallett T. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. 2014; 3 (2):188–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information. 2002; 41 (1):5–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. 5. London: Edward Arnold; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society. 2010; 39 (6):593–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology. 2016; 19 (1):137–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
• Gans H. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1999; 28 (5):540–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert N. Researching social life. 3. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaeser A. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 :207–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
• Goertz G, Mahoney J. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goffman E. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1989; 18 (2):123–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin J, Horowitz R. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2002; 25 (1):33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
• Hammersley M. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2007; 30 (3):287–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Hammersley M. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education. 2018; 13 (1):1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography . Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Hempel CG. Philosophy of the natural sciences. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood JC. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology. 2006; 34 (3):207–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• James W. Pragmatism. New York: Meredian Books; 1907. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jovanović G. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences. 2011; 24 (2):1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalof L, Dan A, Dietz T. Essentials of social research. London: Open University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research. 2015; 44 (1):108–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• King G, Keohane RO, Sidney S, Verba S. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. Designing social inquiry. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In: Lamont M, White P, editors. Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2004. pp. 91–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M, Swidler A. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):153–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarsfeld P, Barton A. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In: Kendall P, editor. The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld. New York: Columbia University Press; 1982. pp. 239–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; 10.1177/0049124114554458.
• Lofland J, Lofland L. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofland J, Snow DA, Anderson L, Lofland LH. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 4. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Long AF, Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2004; 7 (2):181–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg G. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1951. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge; 1922. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manicas P. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchel C, Owens S. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology. 2007; 10 (4):301–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre LJ. Need to know. Social science research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton RK, Barber E. The travels and adventures of serendipity . A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannay D, Morgan M. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘ Qualitative Research. 2015; 15 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman LW. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin CC. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
• Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
• Schütz A. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seiffert H. Einführung in die Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Franke; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. 2. London: SAGE Publications; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):48–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small ML. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography. 2009; 10 (1):5–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
• Snow DA, Anderson L. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow DA, Morrill C. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1995; 24 (3):341–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. 14. Chicago: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
• Swedberg R. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February. 1990; 3 (1):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmermans S, Tavory I. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (3):167–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trier-Bieniek A. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (6):630–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner J. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information. 2000; 39 (1):99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

•    Home
• Article citations
• Biomedical & Life Sci.
• Business & Economics
• Chemistry & Materials Sci.
• Computer Sci. & Commun.
• Earth & Environmental Sci.
• Engineering
• Medicine & Healthcare
• Physics & Mathematics
• Social Sci. & Humanities

Journals by Subject  

• Biomedical & Life Sciences
• Chemistry & Materials Science
• Computer Science & Communications
• Earth & Environmental Sciences
• Social Sciences & Humanities
• Paper Submission
• Information for Authors
• Peer-Review Resources
• Open Special Issues
• Open Access Statement
• Frequently Asked Questions

Publish with us  

Article citations more>>.

Crossman, A. (2020) An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods. Direct Observation, Interviews, Participation, Immersion, Focus Groups. Thought Co. https://www.thoughtco.com/qualitative-research-methods-3026555

has been cited by the following article:

TITLE: Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool to Explore Housing Decisions Related to Living in the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines

KEYWORDS: Wind Turbines , Vacated/Abandoned Homes , Qualitative

JOURNAL NAME: Open Access Library Journal , Vol.8 No.3 , March 26, 2021

ABSTRACT: Background: Some people living near wind turbines have reported adverse health effects and taken the step to vacate/abandon their homes, while others contemplate doing so or have decided to remain in their homes. Research on the extent and outcomes of these events is lacking. To date, our preliminary findings and an overview of results have been published in the scientific literature. Methods: This study utilized a qualitative methodology, specifically Grounded Theory, to interview 67 residents of Ontario living within 10 km of an industrial wind turbine project. Objectives: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research each has strengths and weaknesses in addressing particular research questions. The purpose of this article is to compare the qualitative and quantitative methodologies and to describe the benefits of having used a qualitative methodology, specifically Grounded Theory, to explore the events that influenced families living within 10 km of wind energy facilities to contemplate vacating their homes and to formulate a substantive theory regarding these housing decisions. Results: It was found that research into the impacts of siting industrial wind turbines in a rural residential population can be challenging for a quantitative methodological approach due to factors such as low population density, obtaining a sufficient sample, and achieving statistical power and statistical significance. We conclude that the Grounded Theory methodology was applicable to this study as it assisted with the development of a coherent theory which explained participants’ housing decisions. Discussion: This paper assesses the appropriateness of a qualitative methodology for conducting the vacated/abandoned home study. Through the utilization of the qualitative Grounded Theory methodology, government authorities, researchers, medical and health practitioners, social scientists and policy makers with an interest in health policy and disease prevention have the opportunity to gain an awareness of the potential risk of placing wind energy projects near family homes.

Related Articles:

• Open   Access Articles Immersion Tools as a Strategy for Adolescents Mental Health: A Qualitative Study Diana Cecilia Tapia-Pancardo, Juan Carlos Gutiérrez-Martínez, Rodolfo Martínez-Mondragón, Claudia Gabriela Rivera-Ramírez, Cristina Piñón-Atilano, Wendy de Jesús Hernández-Bravo, Andrea Navarrete-Mejorada, Viviana Sánchez-Gómez, Rafael Villalobos-Molina Health Vol.12 No.7 , July 27, 2020 DOI: 10.4236/health.2020.127064
• Open   Access Articles Criticise Your Working Conditions! —Focus Group Interviews on Sensitive Topics Rasmus Antoft, Anders Petersen Advances in Applied Sociology Vol.4 No.3 , March 25, 2014 DOI: 10.4236/aasoci.2014.43014
• Open   Access Articles Recovery in Peer Support Groups for Batterers—A Qualitative Study Angelique Vendrig-de Ron, Arno van Dam Psychology Vol.15 No.3 , March 29, 2024 DOI: 10.4236/psych.2024.153026
• Open   Access Articles Hamiltonian Cayley Digraphs on Direct Products of Dihedral Groups Grant Andruchuk, Shonda Gosselin, Yizhe Zeng Open Journal of Discrete Mathematics Vol.2 No.3 , July 18, 2012 DOI: 10.4236/ojdm.2012.23016
• Open   Access Articles Hajós-Property for Direct Product of Groups Khalid Amin Advances in Linear Algebra & Matrix Theory Vol.5 No.4 , November 19, 2015 DOI: 10.4236/alamt.2015.54013
• Journals A-Z

About SCIRP

• Publication Fees
• For Authors
• Peer-Review Issues
• Special Issues
• Manuscript Tracking System
• Subscription
• Translation & Proofreading
• Volume & Issue
• Open Access
• Publication Ethics
• Preservation
• Privacy Policy

• Open access
• Published: 27 April 2024

Exploring health care providers’ engagement in prevention and management of multidrug resistant Tuberculosis and its factors in Hadiya Zone health care facilities: qualitative study

• Bereket Aberham Lajore 1   na1   nAff5 ,
• Yitagesu Habtu Aweke 2   na1   nAff6 ,
• Samuel Yohannes Ayanto 3   na1   nAff7 &
• Menen Ayele 4   nAff5  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  542 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Engagement of healthcare providers is one of the World Health Organization strategies devised for prevention and provision of patient centered care for multidrug resistant tuberculosis. The need for current research question rose because of the gaps in evidence on health professional’s engagement and its factors in multidrug resistant tuberculosis service delivery as per the protocol in the prevention and management of multidrug resistant tuberculosis.

The purpose of this study was to explore the level of health care providers’ engagement in multidrug resistant tuberculosis prevention and management and influencing factors in Hadiya Zone health facilities, Southern Ethiopia.

Descriptive phenomenological qualitative study design was employed between 02 May and 09 May, 2019. We conducted a key informant interview and focus group discussions using purposely selected healthcare experts working as directly observed treatment short course providers in multidrug resistant tuberculosis treatment initiation centers, program managers, and focal persons. Verbatim transcripts were translated to English and exported to open code 4.02 for line-by-line coding and categorization of meanings into same emergent themes. Thematic analysis was conducted based on predefined themes for multidrug resistant tuberculosis prevention and management and core findings under each theme were supported by domain summaries in our final interpretation of the results. To maintain the rigors, Lincoln and Guba’s parallel quality criteria of trustworthiness was used particularly, credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability and reflexivity.

Total of 26 service providers, program managers, and focal persons were participated through four focus group discussion and five key informant interviews. The study explored factors for engagement of health care providers in the prevention and management of multidrug resistant tuberculosis in five emergent themes such as patients’ causes, perceived susceptibility, seeking support, professional incompetence and poor linkage of the health care facilities. Our findings also suggest that service providers require additional training, particularly in programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

The study explored five emergent themes: patient’s underlying causes, seeking support, perceived susceptibility, professionals’ incompetence and health facilities poor linkage. Community awareness creation to avoid fear of discrimination through provision of support for those with multidrug resistant tuberculosis is expected from health care providers using social behavioral change communication strategies. Furthermore, program managers need to follow the recommendations of World Health Organization for engaging healthcare professionals in the prevention and management of multidrug resistant tuberculosis and cascade trainings in clinical programmatic management of the disease for healthcare professionals.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the infectious agent that causes multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), is resistant to at least rifampicin and isoniazid. Direct infection can cause the disease to spread, or it can develop secondary to improper management of tuberculosis among drug susceptible tuberculosis cases and associated poor adherence [ 1 ].

Multidrug-resistant strains of mycobacterium tuberculosis have recently emerged, which makes achieving “End TB Strategy” more difficult [ 2 ]. Multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) has been found to increasingly pose a serious threat to global and Ethiopian public health sector. Despite the fact that a number of risk factors for MDR-TB have been identified through various research designs, the epidemiology of this disease is complex, contextual, and multifaceted [ 1 ]. Quantitative studies demonstrate that prior treatment history [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ], interrupted drug supply [ 8 ], inappropriate treatments and poor patient compliance [ 3 , 7 , 9 ], poor quality directly observed treatment short course (DOTS), poor treatment adherence [ 10 ], age [ 5 ], and malnutrition [ 11 ] were factors associated with multi drug resistant TB.

Globally, an estimated 20% of previously treated cases and 3.3% of new cases are thought to have MDR-TB; these levels have essentially not changed in recent years. Globally, 160,684 cases of multidrug-resistant TB and rifampicin-resistant TB (MDR/RR-TB) were notified in 2017, and 139,114 cases were enrolled into treatment in 2017 [ 12 ]. A systematic review in Ethiopia reported 2% prevalence of MDR-TB [ 3 ] that is higher than what is observed in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1.5% [ 13 ]. The prevalence of MDR-TB, according to the national drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) sentinel report, was 2.3% among newly diagnosed cases of TB and 17.8% among cases of TB who had already received treatment,. This suggests a rising trend in the prevalence of TB drug resistance compared to the results of the initial drug-resistant TB survey carried out in Ethiopia from 2003 to 2005 [ 14 ].

Ethiopia has placed strategies into place that emphasize political commitment, case finding, appropriate treatment, a continuous supply of second-line anti-TB medications of high quality, and a recording system. Due to other competing health priorities, the nation is having difficulty accelerating the scale-up of the detection, enrollment and treatment of drug-resistant TB patients [ 15 , 16 ]. To address these issues, the nation switched from a hospital-based to a clinic-based ambulatory model of care, which has allowed MDR-TB services to quickly decentralize and become more accessible. Accordingly, the nation has set up health facilities to act as either treatment initiating centers (TIC) or treatment follow-up centers (TFC) or both for improved referral and communication methods [ 15 ].

One of the key components of the “End TB strategy” is engagement of health care professionals in the prevention and management of multidrug resistant tuberculosis [ 17 ]. Inadequate engagement of healthcare providers is one aspect of the healthcare system that negatively influences MDR-TB prevention and control efforts [ 17 ]. This may be manifested in a number of ways, including inadequate understanding of drug-resistant tuberculosis, improper case identification, failure to initiate treatment again, placement of the wrong regimens, improper management of side effects and poor infection prevention [ 1 ]. These contributing factors are currently being observed in Ethiopia [ 18 ], Nigeria [ 7 , 19 , 20 ] and other countries [ 21 , 22 ]. According to a study conducted in Ethiopia, MDR-TB was linked to drug side effects from first-line treatments, being not directly observed, stopping treatment for at least a day, and retreating with a category II regimen [ 17 ].

This may be the result of a synergy between previously investigated and other contextual factors that have not yet been fully explored, such as professional engagement, beliefs, and poor preventive practices. The engagement of health professionals in MDR-TB prevention and control is assessed using a number of composite indicators. Health professionals may interact primarily inside the healthcare facilities. Typically, they play a significant role in connecting healthcare services with neighborhood-based activities [ 17 ]. One of the main research areas that have not sufficiently addressed is evidence indicating the status of healthcare professionals’ engagement and contextual factors in MDR-TB prevention and management.

It is increasingly urgent to identify additional and existing factors operating in a particular context that contribute to the development of the disease in light of the epidemic of drug resistance, including multi-drug resistance (MDR-TB) and extensively drug resistant TB (XDR-TB) in both new and previously treated cases of the disease [ 23 ]. In order to develop and implement control measures, it is therefore essential to operationally identify a number of contextual factors operating at the individual, community, and health system level.

Therefore, the overall purpose of this study was to explore the level of engagement of health care providers and contextual factors hindering/enabling the prevention and provision of patient-centered care for MDR-TB in health facilities, DOTS services centers and MDR-TB treatment initiation center [TIC], in Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Qualitative approach and research paradigm

Descriptive phenomenological qualitative study design was employed to explore factors influencing engagement of health professionals in MDR-TB prevention and management and thematic technique was employed for the analysis of the data.

Researchers’ characteristics and reflexivity

Three Principal investigators conducted this study. Two of them had Masters of public health in Epidemiology and Reproductive health and PhD candidates and the third one had Bachelor’s degree in public health with clinical experience in the area of Tuberculosis prevention and management and MPH in Biostatistics. The principal investigators have research experience with published articles in different reputable journals. There were no prior contacts between researchers and participants before the study whereas researchers have built positive rapport with study participants during data collection to foster open communication and trust and had no any assumptions and presuppositions about the research topic and result.

Context/ study setting and period

The study was conducted between 2 and 9 May, 2019 in Hadiya Zone with more than 1.7 million people residing in the Zone. There are 300 health posts, 63 health centers, 3 functional primary hospitals and 1 comprehensive specialized hospital in the Zone. Also, there are more than 350 private clinics and 1 private hospital in the Zone. All of the public health facilities and some private health facilities provide directly observed short course treatment (DOTS) service for tuberculosis patients. There are more than eight treatment initiation centers (TICs) for MDR-TB patients in Hadiya Zone. MDR-TB (Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis) treatment initiation centers are specialized facilities that provide comprehensive care, diagnosis and treatment initiation, psychosocial support, and follow up services to individuals with MDR-TB. The linkage between MDR-TB treatment initiation centers and other healthcare facilities lies in the coordination of care, referral pathways, and collaboration to ensure comprehensive and integrated care for individuals with MDR-TB. Overall, healthcare providers play a crucial role in the management of MDR-TB by providing specialized care, ensuring treatment adherence, monitoring progress and outcomes, and supporting individuals in achieving successful treatment outcomes and improved health.

Units of study and sampling strategy

Our study participants were health care professionals working in MDR-TB TICs in both private and public health facilities, and providing DOTS services, MDR-TB program leaders in treatment initiation centers, as well as TB focal persons, disease prevention and health promotion focal person, and project partners from district health offices. The study involved four focus group discussion (FGDs) and five key informants’ interview (KII) with a total of 26 participants to gather the necessary information. Expert purposive sampling technique was employed and sample size was determined based on the saturation of idea required during data collection process.

Data collection methods and instruments

Focus group discussion and face to face key informants’ interviews were employed to collect the data. We conducted a total of four FGD and five key informants’ interviews with participants chosen from DOTS providing health facilities and MDR-TB program leaders in treatment initiation centers, as well as TB focal persons and project partners from district health offices and disease prevention and health promotion focal person. One of the FGDs was conducted among health professionals from the public MDR-TB treatment initiation centers. Three FGDs were conducted among disease prevention and health promotion focal persons, TB focal persons and DOTS providers in public health facilities (health centers).

An observation checklist was developed to assess the general infection prevention and control measures used by specific healthcare facilities in the study area. We used unstructured FGD guide, key informant interview guide, observation checklist and audio recorders to collect primary data and it was collected using local language called Amharic. Prior to data collection, three people who are not among principal investigators with at least a master’s degree in public health and prior experience with qualitative research were trained by principal investigators. Three of them acts as a tape recorder, a moderator, and as a note taker alternatively. The length of FGD ranged from 58 to 82 min and that of key informants’ interview lasted from 38 to 56 min.

Data processing and data analysis

Memos were written immediately after interviews followed by initial analysis. Transcription of audio records was performed by principal investigators. The audio recordings and notes were refined, cleaned and matched at the end of each data collection day to check for inconsistencies, correct errors, and modify the procedures in response to evolving study findings for subsequent data collection. Transcribed interviews, memos, and notes from investigator’s observation were translated to English and imported to Open Code 4.02 [ 2 ] for line by line coding of data, and categorizing important codes (sub theming). The pre-defined themes for MDR-TB prevention and control engagement were used to thematize the line-by-line codes, categories, and meanings using thematic analysis. Finally, the phenomenon being studied was explained by emerging categories and themes. Explanations in themes were substantiated by participants’ direct quotations when necessary.

Trustworthiness

Phone calls and face to face briefing were requested from study participants when some expressions in the audio seems confusing while transcripts were performed. To ensure the credibility of the study, prolonged engagement was conducted, including peer debriefing with colleagues of similar status during data analysis and inviting available study participants to review findings to ensure as it is in line with their view or not. Memos of interviews and observation were crosschecked while investigator was transcribing to ensure credibility of data as well as to triangulate investigator’s categorizing and theming procedures. For transferability, clear outlines of research design and processes were provided, along with a detailed study context for reader judgment. Dependability was ensured through careful recording and transcription of verbal and non-verbal data, and to minimize personal bias, scientific procedures were followed in all research stages. Conformability was maintained by conducting data transcription, translation, and interpretation using scientific methods. Researchers did all the best to show a range of realities, fairly and faithfully. Finally, an expert was invited to put sample of codes and categories to emerged corresponding categories and themes respectively.

Demographic characteristics of study participants

Four focus group discussions and five key informants’ interviews were conducted successfully. There were 26 participants in four focus group discussions, and key informants’ interview. Ages of participants ranges from 20 to 50 years with an average age of 33.4  ±  6.24 SD years. Participants have five to ten years of professional experience with DOTS services (Table  1 ).

Emergent themes and subthemes

The study explored how health care providers’ engagement in MDR-TB prevention and management was influenced. The investigation uncovered five major themes. These themes were the patient’s underlying causes, seeking support, perceived susceptibility, healthcare providers’ incompetence, and poor linkage between health facilities. Weak community TB prevention, health system support, and support from colleagues were identified subthemes in the search for help by health professionals whereas socioeconomic constraints, lack of awareness, and fear of discrimination were subthemes under patients underlying factors (Fig.  1 ).

Themes and subthemes emerged from the analysis of health professionals’ engagement in MDR-TB prevention and management study in Hadiya zone’s health facilities, 2019

The patient’s underlying causes

This revealed why TB/MDR-TB treatment providers believe health professionals are unable to provide standard MDR-TB services. The subthemes include TB/MDR-TB awareness, fear of discrimination, and patients’ socioeconomic constraints.

Socioeconomic constraints

According to our research, the majority of healthcare professionals who provided directly observed short-course treatment services mentioned socioeconomic constraints as barriers to engage per standard and provide MDR-TB prevention and management service. More than half of the participants stated that patients’ primary reasons include lack of money for house rental close to the treatment centers, inability to afford food and other expenses, and financial constraints to cover transportation costs.

In addition to this, patients might have additional responsibilities to provide food and cover other costs for their families’ need. The majority of health care professionals thought that these restrictions led to their poor engagement in MDR-TB prevention and management. One of the focus groups’ discussants provided description of the scenario in the following way:

“…. I have many conversations with my TB/MDR-TB patients. They fail to complete DOTS or treatment intensive care primarily as a result of the requirement of prolonged family separation. They might provide most of the family needs, including food and other expenses” (FGD-P01).

Lack of awareness about MDR-TB

This subtheme explains how MDR-TB patients’ knowledge of the illness can make it more difficult for health professionals to provide DOTS or TICs services. The majority of DOTS providers stated that few TB or MDR-TB patients were aware of how MDR-TB spreads, how it is treated, and how much medication is required. Additionally, despite the fact that they had been educated for the disease, majority of patients did not want to stop contact with their families or caregivers. A health care provider stated,

“…. I provided health education for MDR-TB patients on how the disease is transmitted and how they should care for their family members. They don’t care; however, give a damn about their families .” (FGD-P05).

Some healthcare professionals reported that some patients thought that MDR-TB could not be cured by modern medication. One medical professional described the circumstance as follows:

“…. I noticed an MDR-TB patient who was unwilling to be screened. He concluded that modern medication is not effective and he went to spiritual and traditional healers” (FGD-P02).

As a result, almost all participants agreed on the extent to which patient knowledge of TB and MDR-TB can influence a provider’s engagement to MDR-TB services. The majority suggested that in order to improve treatment outcomes and preventive measures, the media, community leaders, health development armies, one-to-five networks, non-governmental organizations, treatment supporters, and other bodies with access to information need to put a lot of efforts.

Fear of discrimination

According to our research, about a quarter of healthcare professionals recognized that patients’ fear of discrimination prevents them from offering MDR-TB patients the DOTS services they need, including counseling index cases and tracing contact histories.

HEWs, HDAs, and 1-to-5 network members allegedly failed to monitor and counsel the index cases after their immediate return to their homes, according to the opinions from eight out of twenty-six healthcare professionals. The patients began to engage in routine social and political activities with neighbors while hiding their disease status. A healthcare professional described this situation as follows:

“…. I understood from my MDR-TB patient’s words that he kept to himself and avoided social interaction. He made this decision as a result of stigmatization by locals, including health extension workers. As a result, the patient can’t attend social gatherings. …. In addition, medical professionals exclude MDR-TB patients due to fear of exposures. As a result, patients are unwilling to undergo early screening” (FGD-P04).

Professionals’ perceived risk of occupational exposure

This theme highlights the anxiety that healthcare workers experience because of MDR-TB exposure when providing patient care. Our research shows that the majority of health professionals viewed participation as “taking coupons of death.” They believed that regardless of how and where they engaged in most healthcare facilities, the risk of exposure would remain the same. According to our discussion and interview, lack of health facility’s readiness takes paramount shares for the providers’ risk of exposures and their susceptibility.

According to the opinion from the majority of FGD discussants and in-depth interviewees, participants’ self-judgment score and our observation, the majority of healthcare facilities that offer DOTS for DS-TB and MDR-TB did not create or uphold standards in infection prevention in the way that could promote better engagement. These include poor maintenance of care facilities, lack of personal protective equipment, unsuitable facility design for service provision, lack of patient knowledge regarding the method of MDR-TB transmission, and lack of dedication on the part of health care staff.

As one of our key informant interviewees [District Disease Prevention Head], described health professionals’ low engagement has been due to fear of perceived susceptibility. He shared with us what he learned from a community forum he moderated.

Community forum participant stated that “… There was a moment a health professional run-away from the TB unit when MDR-TB patient arrived. At least they must provide the necessary service, even though they are not willing to demonstrate respectful, compassionate, or caring attitude to MDR-TB patients” (KII-P01). Besides , one of the FGD discussants described the circumstance as follows:

“…. Emm…. Because most health facilities or MDR-TB TIC are not standardized, I am concerned about the risk of transmission. They are crammed together and poor ventilation is evident as well as their configuration is improper. Other medical services are causing the TICs to become overcrowded. Most patients and some medical professionals are unconcerned with disease prevention ” (FGD-P19).

Participants’ general fear of susceptibility may be a normal psychological reaction and may serve as a motivation for taking preventative actions. However, almost all participants were concerned that the main reasons for their fear were brought up by the improper application of programmatic management and MDR-TB treatment standards and infection prevention protocols in healthcare facilities.

Health care providers’ incompetence

This theme illustrates how professionalism and dedication impact participation in MDR-TB prevention and management. The use of DS-TB prevention and management by health professionals was also taken into account because it is a major factor in the development of MDR-TB. This theme includes the participants’ perspectives towards other healthcare workers involved in and connected to MDR-TB.

Nearly all of the participants were aware of the causes and danger signs of MDR-TB. The majority of the defined participants fit to the current guidelines. However, participants in focus groups and key informant interviews have brought up shortcomings in MDR-TB service delivery practice and attitude. We looked at gaps among healthcare professionals’ knowledge, how they use the national recommendations for programmatic management and prevention of MDR-TB, prevent infections, take part in community MDR-TB screenings, and collaborate with other healthcare professionals for better engagement.

More than half of the participants voiced concerns about their attitudes and skill sets when using MDR-TB prevention and management guideline. When asked about his prior experiences, one of the focus group participants said:

“…. Ok, let me tell you my experience, I was new before I attended a training on MDR-TB. I was unfamiliar with the MDR-TB definition given in the recommendations. When I was hired, the health center’s director assigned me in the TB unit. I faced difficulties until I received training” (FGD-P24). Furthermore , one of the key informant interview participants shared a story: “…. In my experience, the majority of newly graduated health professionals lack the required skill. I propose that pre-service education curricula to include TB/MDR-TB prevention and management guideline trainings” (KII-P01).

The majority of participants mentioned the skill gap that was seen among health extension workers and laboratory technicians in the majority of healthcare facilities. Some of the participants in the in-depth interviews and FGD described the gaps as follows:

“…. According to repeated quality assurance feedbacks, there are many discordant cases in our [ District TB Focal Person ] case. Laboratory technicians who received a discrepant result (KII-P01) are not given training which is augmented by shared story from FGD discussants, “According to the quality assurance system, laboratory technicians lack skill and inconsistent results are typical necessitating training for newly joining laboratory technicians” (FGD-P20).

Through our discussions, we explored the level of DOTS providers’ adherence to the current TB/MDR-TB guideline. As a result, the majority of participants pointed out ineffective anti-TB management and follow-up care. One of the participants remembered her practical experience as follows:

“…. In my experience, the majority of health professionals fail to inform patients about the drug’s side effects, follow-up procedures, and other techniques for managing the burden of treatment. Only the anti-TB drug is provided, and the patient is left alone. The national treatment recommendation is not properly implemented by them” (FGD-P04).

Many barriers have been cited as reasons that might have hindered competencies for better engagement of health professionals. Training shortage is one of the major reasons mentioned by many of the study participants. One of discussants from private health facility described the problem as

“…. We are incompetent, in my opinion. Considering that we don’t attend update trainings. Many patients who were diagnosed negative at private medical facilities turned out to be positive, and vice versa which would be risky for drug resistance” (FGD-P14) which was supported by idea from a participant in our in-depth interview: “…. We [Program managers] are running short of training for our health care providers at different health centers and revealed that four out of every five healthcare professionals who work in various health centers are unaware of the TB/MDR-TB new guideline” (KII-P02).

Seeking support

This theme focuses on the significance and effects of workplace support in the engagement of MDR-TB prevention and control. This also explains the enabling and impeding elements in the engagement condition of health professionals. Three elements make up the theme: coworkers (other health professionals) in the workplace, support from community TB prevention actors, and a healthcare system.

Support from community TB prevention actors

This subtheme includes the assistance provided to study participants by important parties such as community leaders, the health development army, and other stakeholders who were involved in a community-based TB case notification, treatment adherence, and improved patient outcomes.

Many of the study participants reported that health extension workers have been poorly participating in MDR-TB and TB-related community-based activities like contact tracing, defaulter tracing, community forums, health promotion, and treatment support. One study participant described their gap as follows:

“…. I understood that people in the community were unaware of MDR-TB. The majority of health extension workers do not prioritize raising community awareness of MDR-TB” (FGD-P13). This was supported by idea from a district disease prevention head and stated as: “…. There is no active system for contacts tracing. Health educators send us information if they find suspected cases. However, some patients might not show up as expected. We have data on three family members who tested positive for MDR-TB” (KII-P3).

Support from a health system

The prime focus of this subtheme is on the enabling elements that DOTS providers require assistance from the current healthcare system for better engagement. All study participants expressed at least two needs to be met from the health system in order for them to effectively participate in MDR-TB prevention, treatment, and management. All study participants agreed that issues with the health system had a negative impact on their engagement in the prevention, treatment, diagnosis, and management of MDR-TB in almost all healthcare facilities. Poor conditions in infrastructure, resources (supplies, equipment, guidelines, and other logistics), capacity building (training), supportive supervision, establishment of public-private partnerships, and assignment of motivated and trained health professionals are some of the barriers that needs to be worked out in order to make them engage better. One of the participants pronounces supplies and logistics problems as:

“…. The health center I worked in is listed as a DOTS provider. However, it lacks constant electricity, a working microscope, lab supplies, medications, etc, and we refer suspected cases to nearby health centers or district hospitals for AFB-examination and, “Sometimes we use a single kit for many patients and wait for the medication supply for three or more weeks and patients stops a course of therapy that might induce drug resistance” (FGD-PI04) which was augmented by statement from FGD participant who works at a treatment initiation center: “…. We faced critical shortage of supplies and hospital administrators don’t care about funding essential supplies for patient care. For instance, this hospital (the hospital in which this FGD was conducted) can easily handle N-95 masks. Why then they (hospital administrators working in some TIC) can’t do it?” (FGD-P18).”

Regarding in-service training on MDR-TB, almost all participants pointed out shortage of on-job training mechanisms. One of our FGD participants said:

“…. I missed the new training on MDRTB programmatic management guidelines. I’ve heard that new updates are available. I still work using the old standard” (FGD-PI05). A health professional working in private clinic heightens the severity of training shortage as: “…. We have not participated in TB/MDR-TB guidelines training. You know, most of for-profit healthcare facilities do not provide any training for their staff. I’m not sure if I’m following the (TB/MDR-TB) guideline” (FGD-P14). One of our key informant interview participants; MDR-TB center focal person suggested the need for training as: “…. I’ve received training on the MDR-TB services and public-private partnership strategy. It was crucial in my opinion for better engagement. It is provided for our staff [MDRTB center focal person]. However, this has not yet been expanded to other health facilities” (KII-P04).

Concerning infrastructures, transportation problem was one of the frequently mentioned obstacles by many participants that hinder engagement in MDR-TB/TB service. This factor had a negative impact to both sides (health professionals and patients). One of discussants said:

“…. I face obstacles such as transport cost to perform effective TB/MDR-TB outreach activities like health education, tracing family contacts and defaulters and community mobilization. Rural kebeles are far apart from each other. How can I support 6 rural Kebeles?” (FGD-P01). One of the participants; MDR-TB treatment centers supervisor/program partner seconded the above idea as: “…. I suggest government must establish a system to support health professionals working in remote health care facilities in addition to MDR-TB centers. I guess there are more than 30 government health centers and additional private clinics. We can’t reach them all due to transportation challenges” (KII-P05). One of the participants , a district disease prevention head added: “…. Our laboratory technicians take sample from MDR-TB suspects to the post office and then, the post office sends to MDR-TB site. Sometimes, feedback may not reach timely. There is no any system to cover transportation cost. That would make case detection challenging” (FGD-P02).

Support from colleagues

Study participants stated the importance of having coworker with whom they could interconnect. However, eight participants reported that they were discriminated by their workmates for various reasons, such as their perceived fear of exposure to infection and their perception as if health professionals working in TB/MDR-TB unit get more training opportunities and other incentives. One of the focus group discussants said:

“…. My colleagues [health professional working out of MDR-TB TICs] stigmatize us only due to our work assignment in MDR-TB clinic. I remember that one of my friends who borrowed my headscarf preferred to throw it through a window than handing-over it back safely. Look, how much other health professionals are scared of working in MDR-TB unit. This makes me very upset. I am asking myself that why have I received such training on MDR-TB?” (FGD-P04).

Some of the participants also perceived that, health professionals working in MDR-TB/TB unit are the only responsible experts regarding MDR-TB care and treatment. Because, other health professionals consider training as if it is an incentive to work in such units. One of the FGD discussants described:

“… Health professionals who work in other service units are not volunteer to provide DOTS if TB focal person/previously trained staffs are not available. Patients wait for longer time” (FGD-P11).

Health facilities’ poor linkage

This theme demonstrates how various healthcare facilities, including private and public healthcare facilities such as, health posts, health care centers and hospitals, and healthcare professionals working at various levels of the healthcare system in relation to TB/MDR-TB service, are inter-linked or communicating with one another.

Many study participants noted a lack of coordination between higher referral hospitals, TB clinics, health posts, and health centers. Additionally, the majority of the assigned healthcare professionals had trouble communicating with patients and their coworkers. A focus group discussant also supported this idea as

“…. There is a lack of communication between us [DOTS providers at treatment initiation centers] and health posts, health centers, and private clinics. We are expected to support about 30 public health facilities. It’s of too much number, you know. They are out of our reach. We only took action when a problem arose” (FGD-P16).

Significant number of participants had raised the problem of poor communication between health facilities and treatment initiation centers. One of the interviewees [program manager] said:

“…. I see that one of our challenges is the weak referral connections between treatment initiation centers and health centers. As a result, improper sample transfer to Gene- Xpert sites and irregular postal delivery are frequent” . “Our; DOTS staff at the MDR-TB center, DOTS staff at the health center, and health extension workers are not well connected to one another. Many patients I encountered came to this center [MDR-TB center] after bypassing both health post and health center. Poor linkage and communication, in my opinion, could be one of the causes. The same holds true for medical facilities that are both public and private ” (KII-P02).

Engagement of individual healthcare providers is one of the peculiar interventions to achieve the goal of universal access to drug resistance tuberculosis care and services [ 17 ]. Healthcare providers engagement in detecting cases, treating and caring for multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) may be influenced by various intrinsic (individual provider factors) and extrinsic (peer, health system, political and other factors) [ 15 ]. Our study explored engagement of individual DOTS providers and factors that influence their engagement in MDR-TB prevention and management service. This is addressed through five emergent themes and subthemes as clearly specified in our results section.

The findings showed patients’ socioeconomic constraints were important challenges that influence health professionals’ engagement, and provision of MDR-TB prevention and management services. Although approaches differ, studies in Ethiopia [ 24 ], South Africa [ 25 ] and India [ 26 , 27 ] documented that such factors influence health providers’ engagement in the prevention and management of multi drug resistant tuberculosis. Again, the alleviation of these factors demands the effort from patients, stakeholders working on TB, others sectors, and the healthcare system so that healthcare providers can deliver the service more effectively in their day-to-day activities and will be more receptive to the other key factors.

We explored participants’ experiences on how patients’ awareness about drug sensitive or multi drug resistant tuberculosis influenced their engagement. Accordingly, participants encountered numerous gaps that restricted their interactions with TB/MDR-TB patients. In fact, our study design and purposes vary, studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 ] indicated that patients awareness influenced providers decision in relation to MDR-TB services and patients’ awareness status is among factors influencing healthcare providers’ decision making about the care the MDR-TB patient receives. As to our knowledge, patients’ perceived fear of discrimination was not documented whether it had direct negative impact on reducing providers’ engagement. Therefore, patients’ awareness creation is an important responsibility that needs to be addressed by the community health development army, health extension workers, all other healthcare providers and stakeholder for better MDR-TB services and patient outcomes.

Our study indicates that healthcare providers perceived that they would be exposed to MDR-TB while they are engaged. Some of the participants were more concerned about the disadvantages of engagement in providing care to MDR-TB patients which were predominantly psychological and physical pressure. In this context, the participants emphasized that engagement in MDR-TB patient care is “always being at risk” and expressed a negative attitude. This finding is similar to what has been demonstrated in a cross-sectional study conducted in South Africa in which majority of healthcare providers believed their engagement in MDR-TB services would risk their health [ 21 ].

However, majority of the healthcare providers demonstrated perceived fear of exposures mainly due to poor infection prevention practices and substandard organization of work environment in most TB/MDR-TB units. This is essentially reasonable fear, and needs urgent intervention to protect healthcare providers from worsening/reducing their effective engagement in MDR-TB patient care. On the other side of the coin, perceived risk of occupational exposure to infection could be source for taking care of oneself to combat the spread of the infection.

In our study, healthcare provider’s capability (competence) also had an impact on their ability to engage in prevention and management of MDR-TB. Here, participants had frequently raised their and other healthcare providers’ experience regarding skill gaps, negative attitude towards the service unit they were working in, ineffective use of MDR-TB guideline, poor infection prevention practices and commitment. In addition, many health professionals report serious problems regarding case identification and screening, drug administration, and side effect management. These findings were supported by other studies in Ethiopia [ 7 ] and in Nigeria [ 19 , 20 ]. This implies an urgent need for training of health care worker on how to engage in prevention and management of multidrug resistant TB.

Moreover, our findings provide insights into the role of community TB prevention actors, currently functioning health system, and colleagues and other stakeholders’ regarding healthcare providers’ engagement. Participants emphasized that support from community TB prevention actors is a key motivation to effectively engage on management and prevention roles towards MDR-TB. Evidence shows that community TB prevention is one of the prominent interventions that study participants would expect in DOTS provision as community is the closest source of information regarding the patients [ 31 , 32 ].

Similarly, all participants had pointed out the importance of support from a health system directly or indirectly influence their engagement in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and management of MDR-TB. Researches indicated that health system supports are enabling factors for healthcare providers in decision making regarding TB/MDR-TB prevention and treatment [ 33 ]. This problem is documented by the study done in Ethiopia [ 22 ]. In addition, support from colleagues and other stakeholders was also a felt need to engage in MDR-TB which was supported by the World Health Organization guideline which put engagement in preventing MDR-TB and providing patients centered care needs collaborative endeavor among healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders [ 17 ].

Participants showed that there were poor linkage among/within DOTS providers working in health post (extension workers), health centers, hospitals and MDRTB treatment initiation centers. Our finding is consistent with a research in South Africa which shows poor health care attitude is linked to poor treatment adherence [ 34 ]. Our study implies the need for further familiarization especially on clinical programmatic management of drug resistant tuberculosis. Moreover, program managers need to follow health professionals’ engagement approaches recommended by the World Health Organization: End TB strategy [ 17 ].

Limitations of the study

There are some limitations that must be explicitly acknowledged. First, participants from private health facilities were very few, which might have restricted the acquisition and incorporation of perspectives from health care providers from private health care facilities. Second, healthcare providers’ engagement was not measured from patient side given that factors for engagement may differ from what has been said by the healthcare provides. Third, power relationships especially among focus group discussant in MDR-TB treatment initiation centers might have influenced open disclosures of some sensitive issues.

The study showed how healthcare provider’s engagement in MDR-TB management and prevention was influenced. Accordingly, patient’s underlying causes, seeking support, perceived occupational exposure, healthcare provider’s incompetence and health facilities poor linkage were identified from the analysis. Weak community TB prevention efforts, poor health system support and support from colleagues, health care providers’ incompetence and health facilities poor linkage were among identified factors influencing engagement in MDR – TB prevention and management. Therefore, measures need to be in place that avert the observed obstacles to health professionals’ engagement including further quantitative studies to determine the effects of the identified reasons and potential factors in their engagement status.

Furthermore, our findings pointed out the need for additional training of service providers, particularly in clinical programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Besides, program managers must adhere to the World Health Organization’s recommendations for health professional engagement. Higher officials in the health sector needs to strengthen the linkage between health facilities and service providers at different levels. Community awareness creation to avoid fear of discrimination including provision of support for those with MDR-TB is expected from health experts through implementation of social behavioral change communication activities.

Abbreviations

Directly observed treatment short-course

Drug susceptible tuberculosis

Millennium development goals

Multidrug resistant tuberculosis

Sustainable development goals

Tuberculosis

Treatment initiation center

World Health Organization

Extensively drug resistant TB

WHO. Companion handbook to the WHO guidelines for the programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. WHO; Geneva, Switherland. 2014.

WHO. Implementing the end TB Strategy: The Essentials. WHO, Geneva. Switherland; 2015.

Eshetie S, Gizaw M, Dagnew M, Kumera G, Woldie H, Fikadu A. et.al. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Ethiopian settings and its association with previous history of anti-tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ethiopia: efforts to expand diagnostic services, treatment and care. BMC Antimicrobial Resist Infect Control. 2014;3:31.

Biadglegne F, Sack U, Rodloff AC. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Ethiopia: efforts to expand diagnostic services, treatment and care. BMC Antimicro Resist Infect Control. 2014;3:31.

Lema NA, Majigo M, Mbelele PM, Abade AMIM. Risk factors associated with multidrug resistant tuberculosis among patients referred to Kibong’oto Infectious Disease Hospital in northern Tanzania. Tanzania J Health Res. 2016;18:4.

Mekonnen F, Tessema B, Moges F, Gelaw A, Eshetie S. G. K. Multidrug resistant tuberculosis: prevalence and risk factors in districts of metema and west armachiho, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:461.

Selamawit H, Girmay M, Belaineh G, Muluken M, Alemayehu M, et al. PS. Determinants of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in patients who underwent first-line treatment in Addis Ababa: a case control study. BMC Public Health 2013. 2013;13:782.

Google Scholar  

Safwat TM, Elmasry AA, Mohamed A. Prevalence of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in abbassia Chest hospital from july 2006 to december 2009. Egyptian J Bronchol. 2011;5(2):124–30.

World Health Organization. WHO Global tuberculosis report 2015. Geneva: WHO. 2015.

Rifat M, Hall J, Oldmeadow C, Husain A, Hinderaker SG. AH. M. Factors related to previous tuberculosis treatment of patients with multidrug resistant tuberculosis in Bangladesh. BMJ Open. 2015;5.

Gupta KB, Gupta R, Atreja A, Verma MSV. Tuberculosis and nutrition. Lung India: Offic Organ of Indian Chest Soc. 2009;26(1):9–16. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.45198 . 2009.

World Health Organization. WHO Global tuberculosis report 2018. Geneva: WHO. 2018.

Deus L, Willy S, Kenneth M, George WK, Frank JCMJ. et al. Variation and risk factors of drug resistant tuberculosis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2015;15.

Federal Ministry of Health. Guidelines for Clinical and Programmatic Management of TB, TB/HIV and Leprosy in Ethiopia. Fifth Edition. Addis Ababa. March, 2013.

FDRE/MOH. Guidelines on programmatic management of drug resistant tuberculosis in Ethiopia. 2ND ED.2014 ADDIS ABABA. 2014.

CSIS. Center for Strategic and International Studies. As Ethiopia moves toward tuberculosis elimination, success requires higher investment: A report of CSIS global health policy center. CSIS, Washinton DC, America. 2016.

World Health organization. Framework for the engagement of all health care providers in the management of drug resistant tuberculosis. Geneva; Switherland. WHO 2015.

Vries G, Tsolova S, Anderson LF, Gebhard AC, Helda E, Hollo V. Health system factors influencing management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in four European Union countries - learning from country experiences. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:334.

Isara AR, Akpodiete A. Concerns about the knowledge and attitude of multidrug resistant tuberculosis among health care workers and patients in Delta State, Nigeria. Nigerian J Clin Pract. 2015;18:5.

Luka MI, Idris SH, Patrick N, Ndadilnasiya EW, Moses OA, Phillip P., et al. Health care workers’ knowledge and attitude towards TB patients under Direct Observation of Treatment in Plateau state Nigeria, 2011. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;18 (Supp1):8.

Malangu N, Adebanjo OD. Knowledge and practices about multidrug-resistant tuberculosis amongst healthcare workers in Maseru. Afr J Prm Health Care Fam Med. 2015;7:1.

Molla Y, Jerene D, Jema I, Nigussie G, Kebede T, Kassie Y. et.al. The experience of scaling up a decentralized, ambulatory model of care for management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in two regions of Ethiopia. J Clinic Tubercul Other Mycobacter Dis. 2017;7:28–33.

Merza MA, Farnia P, Tabarsi P, Khazampour M, Masjedi MR. AA. V. Anti-tuberculosis drug resistance and associated risk factors in a tertiary level TB centre in Iran: a retrospective analysis. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2011;5(7):511–19.

Gebremariam MK, Bjune GA. FJ. Barriers and facilitators of adherence to TB treatment in patients on concomitant TB and HIV treatment: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:651.

Suri AGK. S. C. Voices from the Field: Perspectives from Community Health Workers on Health Care Delivery in Rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Infect Dis. 2007;196:S505–11.

Deshmukh RD, Dhande DJ, Sachdeva KS, Sreenivas AN, Kumar AMV. M. P. Social support a key factor for adherence to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. Indian J Tubercul. 2017.

Samuel B, Volkmann T, Cornelius S, Mukhopadhay S, Mitra K, Kumar AM., et al. Relationship between Nutritional Support and Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes in West Bengal, India. J Tuberc Res. 2016;4(4):213–19.

NC. E. The making of a public health problem: multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in India. Health Policy Plan 2013;28:375–85.

Gler MT, Podewils LJ, Munez N, Galipot M, Quelapio MID, Tupasi TE. Impact of patient and program factors on default during treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012;16(7):955–60. https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.11.0502 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Horter S, Stringer B, Greig J, Amangeldiev A, Tillashaikhov MN, Parpieva N., et al. Where there is hope: a qualitative study examining patients’ adherence to multidrug resistant tuberculosis treatment in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:362.

Naidoo P, Niekerk MV, Toit ED, Beyers N, Leon N. Pathways to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment initiation: a qualitative comparison of patients’ experiences in the era of rapid molecular diagnostic tests. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:488.

WHO. ENGAGE-TB. Training of community health workers and community volunteers. Integrating community-based tuberculosis activities into the work of nongovernmental and other civil society organizations. 2015.

Gerard de Vries S, Tsolova FL, Anderson AC, Gebhard E, Heldal et al. Health system factors influencing management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in four European Union countries - learning from country experiences BMC Public Health. 2017;17:334. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4216-9 .

Finlay A, Lancaster JHT, Weyer K, Miranda A. M. W. Patient- and Provider level risk factors associated with default from tuberculosis treatment, South Africa: a case control study. BMC Publich Health. 2012;12:56.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Hosanna College of Health Sciences Research and community service directorate for providing us the opportunity and necessary fund to conduct this research. Our appreciation also goes to heads of various health centers, hospitals, district health and Hadiya Zone Health office for unreserved cooperation throughout data collection.

The authors declare that this study received funding from Hosanna College of Health Sciences. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

Author information

Bereket Aberham Lajore & Menen Ayele

Present address: Hossana College of Health Sciences, Hosanna, SNNPR, Ethiopia

Yitagesu Habtu Aweke

Present address: College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Samuel Yohannes Ayanto

Present address: College of Health Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Department of -Population and Family Health, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia

Bereket Aberham Lajore, Yitagesu Habtu Aweke and Samuel Yohannes Ayanto contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Family Health, Hossana College of health sciences, Hossana, Ethiopia

Bereket Aberham Lajore

Department of Health informatics, Hossana College of Health Sciences, Hossana, Ethiopia

Department of Midwifery, Hossana College of Health Sciences, Hossana, Ethiopia

Department of Clinical Nursing, Hossana College of Health Sciences, Hossana, Ethiopia

Menen Ayele

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Bereket Aberham Lajore, Yitagesu Habtu Aweke, and Samuel Yohannes Ayanto conceived the idea and wrote the proposal, participated in data management, analyzed the data and drafted the paper and revised the analysis and subsequent draft of the paper. Menen Ayele revised and approved the proposal, revised the analysis and subsequent draft of the paper. Yitagesu Habtu and Bereket Aberham Lajore wrote the main manuscript text and prepared all tables. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bereket Aberham Lajore .

Ethics declarations

All methods and report contents were performed in accordance with the standards for reporting qualitative research.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from Institutional review board [IRB] of Hossana College of health sciences after reviewing the protocol for ethical issues and provided a formal letter of permission to concerned bodies in the health system. Accordingly, permission to conduct this study was granted by respective health facilities in Hadiya zone. Confidentiality of the information was assured and participants’ autonomy not to participate or to opt-out at any stage of the interview were addressed. Finally, informed consent was obtained from the study participants after detailed information.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lajore, B.A., Aweke, Y.H., Ayanto, S.Y. et al. Exploring health care providers’ engagement in prevention and management of multidrug resistant Tuberculosis and its factors in Hadiya Zone health care facilities: qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 542 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10911-6

Download citation

Received : 27 February 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 27 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10911-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Healthcare providers

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]