direct observation qualitative research

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).

Services for...

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

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

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health Researchers

Affiliations.

1 VA Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Boston and Bedford, MA, USA.
2 Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
3 Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
4 Department of Psychology, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA.
5 Department of Public Health, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA.
PMID: 36406296
PMCID: PMC9670254
DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100036

Objective: To provide health research teams with a practical, methodologically rigorous guide on how to conduct direct observation.

Methods: Synthesis of authors' observation-based teaching and research experiences in social sciences and health services research.

Results: This article serves as a guide for making key decisions in studies involving direct observation. Study development begins with determining if observation methods are warranted or feasible. Deciding what and how to observe entails reviewing literature and defining what abstract, theoretically informed concepts look like in practice. Data collection tools help systematically record phenomena of interest. Interdisciplinary teams--that include relevant community members-- increase relevance, rigor and reliability, distribute work, and facilitate scheduling. Piloting systematizes data collection across the team and proactively addresses issues.

Conclusion: Observation can elucidate phenomena germane to healthcare research questions by adding unique insights. Careful selection and sampling are critical to rigor. Phenomena like taboo behaviors or rare events are difficult to capture. A thoughtful protocol can preempt Institutional Review Board concerns.

Innovation: This novel guide provides a practical adaptation of traditional approaches to observation to meet contemporary healthcare research teams' needs.

Keywords: Direct Observation; Ethnography; Health Services Research; Methods; Qualitative Methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declared no conflict of interests.

Graphical abstract

Direct observation across a health…

Direct observation across a health research study.

Semi-Structured Observation Template.

Related information

Grants and funding.

IK2 HX001783/HX/HSRD VA/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

ClinicalKey
Elsevier Science
Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Learn more about DOAJ’s privacy policy.

Hide this message

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

The Directory of Open Access Journals

Quick search.

PEC Innovation (Dec 2022)

Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers

Gemmae M. Fix,
Mollie A. Ruben,
Megan B. McCullough

Affiliations

Read online

Objective: To provide health research teams with a practical, methodologically rigorous guide on how to conduct direct observation. Methods: Synthesis of authors’ observation-based teaching and research experiences in social sciences and health services research. Results: This article serves as a guide for making key decisions in studies involving direct observation. Study development begins with determining if observation methods are warranted or feasible. Deciding what and how to observe entails reviewing literature and defining what abstract, theoretically informed concepts look like in practice. Data collection tools help systematically record phenomena of interest. Interdisciplinary teams--that include relevant community members-- increase relevance, rigor and reliability, distribute work, and facilitate scheduling. Piloting systematizes data collection across the team and proactively addresses issues. Conclusion: Observation can elucidate phenomena germane to healthcare research questions by adding unique insights. Careful selection and sampling are critical to rigor. Phenomena like taboo behaviors or rare events are difficult to capture. A thoughtful protocol can preempt Institutional Review Board concerns. Innovation: This novel guide provides a practical adaptation of traditional approaches to observation to meet contemporary healthcare research teams’ needs.

Direct Observation
Qualitative Methods
Ethnography
Health Services Research

WeChat QR code

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
Neurol Res Pract

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Loraine busetto.

1 Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Wolfgang Wick

2 Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Christoph Gumbinger

Associated data.

Not applicable.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of qualitative research methods, including hands-on information on how they can be used, reported and assessed. This article is intended for beginning qualitative researchers in the health sciences as well as experienced quantitative researchers who wish to broaden their understanding of qualitative research.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as “the study of the nature of phenomena”, including “their quality, different manifestations, the context in which they appear or the perspectives from which they can be perceived” , but excluding “their range, frequency and place in an objectively determined chain of cause and effect” [ 1 ]. This formal definition can be complemented with a more pragmatic rule of thumb: qualitative research generally includes data in form of words rather than numbers [ 2 ].

Why conduct qualitative research?

Because some research questions cannot be answered using (only) quantitative methods. For example, one Australian study addressed the issue of why patients from Aboriginal communities often present late or not at all to specialist services offered by tertiary care hospitals. Using qualitative interviews with patients and staff, it found one of the most significant access barriers to be transportation problems, including some towns and communities simply not having a bus service to the hospital [ 3 ]. A quantitative study could have measured the number of patients over time or even looked at possible explanatory factors – but only those previously known or suspected to be of relevance. To discover reasons for observed patterns, especially the invisible or surprising ones, qualitative designs are needed.

While qualitative research is common in other fields, it is still relatively underrepresented in health services research. The latter field is more traditionally rooted in the evidence-based-medicine paradigm, as seen in " research that involves testing the effectiveness of various strategies to achieve changes in clinical practice, preferably applying randomised controlled trial study designs (...) " [ 4 ]. This focus on quantitative research and specifically randomised controlled trials (RCT) is visible in the idea of a hierarchy of research evidence which assumes that some research designs are objectively better than others, and that choosing a "lesser" design is only acceptable when the better ones are not practically or ethically feasible [ 5 , 6 ]. Others, however, argue that an objective hierarchy does not exist, and that, instead, the research design and methods should be chosen to fit the specific research question at hand – "questions before methods" [ 2 , 7 – 9 ]. This means that even when an RCT is possible, some research problems require a different design that is better suited to addressing them. Arguing in JAMA, Berwick uses the example of rapid response teams in hospitals, which he describes as " a complex, multicomponent intervention – essentially a process of social change" susceptible to a range of different context factors including leadership or organisation history. According to him, "[in] such complex terrain, the RCT is an impoverished way to learn. Critics who use it as a truth standard in this context are incorrect" [ 8 ] . Instead of limiting oneself to RCTs, Berwick recommends embracing a wider range of methods , including qualitative ones, which for "these specific applications, (...) are not compromises in learning how to improve; they are superior" [ 8 ].

Research problems that can be approached particularly well using qualitative methods include assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change), addressing questions beyond “what works”, towards “what works for whom when, how and why”, and focussing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation [ 7 , 9 – 12 ]. Using qualitative methods can also help shed light on the “softer” side of medical treatment. For example, while quantitative trials can measure the costs and benefits of neuro-oncological treatment in terms of survival rates or adverse effects, qualitative research can help provide a better understanding of patient or caregiver stress, visibility of illness or out-of-pocket expenses.

How to conduct qualitative research?

Given that qualitative research is characterised by flexibility, openness and responsivity to context, the steps of data collection and analysis are not as separate and consecutive as they tend to be in quantitative research [ 13 , 14 ]. As Fossey puts it : “sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation are related to each other in a cyclical (iterative) manner, rather than following one after another in a stepwise approach” [ 15 ]. The researcher can make educated decisions with regard to the choice of method, how they are implemented, and to which and how many units they are applied [ 13 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this can involve several back-and-forth steps between data collection and analysis where new insights and experiences can lead to adaption and expansion of the original plan. Some insights may also necessitate a revision of the research question and/or the research design as a whole. The process ends when saturation is achieved, i.e. when no relevant new information can be found (see also below: sampling and saturation). For reasons of transparency, it is essential for all decisions as well as the underlying reasoning to be well-documented.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Iterative research process

While it is not always explicitly addressed, qualitative methods reflect a different underlying research paradigm than quantitative research (e.g. constructivism or interpretivism as opposed to positivism). The choice of methods can be based on the respective underlying substantive theory or theoretical framework used by the researcher [ 2 ].

Data collection

The methods of qualitative data collection most commonly used in health research are document study, observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 17 ].

Document study

Document study (also called document analysis) refers to the review by the researcher of written materials [ 14 ]. These can include personal and non-personal documents such as archives, annual reports, guidelines, policy documents, diaries or letters.

Observations

Observations are particularly useful to gain insights into a certain setting and actual behaviour – as opposed to reported behaviour or opinions [ 13 ]. Qualitative observations can be either participant or non-participant in nature. In participant observations, the observer is part of the observed setting, for example a nurse working in an intensive care unit [ 18 ]. In non-participant observations, the observer is “on the outside looking in”, i.e. present in but not part of the situation, trying not to influence the setting by their presence. Observations can be planned (e.g. for 3 h during the day or night shift) or ad hoc (e.g. as soon as a stroke patient arrives at the emergency room). During the observation, the observer takes notes on everything or certain pre-determined parts of what is happening around them, for example focusing on physician-patient interactions or communication between different professional groups. Written notes can be taken during or after the observations, depending on feasibility (which is usually lower during participant observations) and acceptability (e.g. when the observer is perceived to be judging the observed). Afterwards, these field notes are transcribed into observation protocols. If more than one observer was involved, field notes are taken independently, but notes can be consolidated into one protocol after discussions. Advantages of conducting observations include minimising the distance between the researcher and the researched, the potential discovery of topics that the researcher did not realise were relevant and gaining deeper insights into the real-world dimensions of the research problem at hand [ 18 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Hijmans & Kuyper describe qualitative interviews as “an exchange with an informal character, a conversation with a goal” [ 19 ]. Interviews are used to gain insights into a person’s subjective experiences, opinions and motivations – as opposed to facts or behaviours [ 13 ]. Interviews can be distinguished by the degree to which they are structured (i.e. a questionnaire), open (e.g. free conversation or autobiographical interviews) or semi-structured [ 2 , 13 ]. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined [ 19 ]. The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data collection, e.g. document study or observations. The topic list is usually adapted and improved at the start of the data collection process as the interviewer learns more about the field [ 20 ]. Across interviews the focus on the different (blocks of) questions may differ and some questions may be skipped altogether (e.g. if the interviewee is not able or willing to answer the questions or for concerns about the total length of the interview) [ 20 ]. Qualitative interviews are usually not conducted in written format as it impedes on the interactive component of the method [ 20 ]. In comparison to written surveys, qualitative interviews have the advantage of being interactive and allowing for unexpected topics to emerge and to be taken up by the researcher. This can also help overcome a provider or researcher-centred bias often found in written surveys, which by nature, can only measure what is already known or expected to be of relevance to the researcher. Interviews can be audio- or video-taped; but sometimes it is only feasible or acceptable for the interviewer to take written notes [ 14 , 16 , 20 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are group interviews to explore participants’ expertise and experiences, including explorations of how and why people behave in certain ways [ 1 ]. Focus groups usually consist of 6–8 people and are led by an experienced moderator following a topic guide or “script” [ 21 ]. They can involve an observer who takes note of the non-verbal aspects of the situation, possibly using an observation guide [ 21 ]. Depending on researchers’ and participants’ preferences, the discussions can be audio- or video-taped and transcribed afterwards [ 21 ]. Focus groups are useful for bringing together homogeneous (to a lesser extent heterogeneous) groups of participants with relevant expertise and experience on a given topic on which they can share detailed information [ 21 ]. Focus groups are a relatively easy, fast and inexpensive method to gain access to information on interactions in a given group, i.e. “the sharing and comparing” among participants [ 21 ]. Disadvantages include less control over the process and a lesser extent to which each individual may participate. Moreover, focus group moderators need experience, as do those tasked with the analysis of the resulting data. Focus groups can be less appropriate for discussing sensitive topics that participants might be reluctant to disclose in a group setting [ 13 ]. Moreover, attention must be paid to the emergence of “groupthink” as well as possible power dynamics within the group, e.g. when patients are awed or intimidated by health professionals.

Choosing the “right” method

As explained above, the school of thought underlying qualitative research assumes no objective hierarchy of evidence and methods. This means that each choice of single or combined methods has to be based on the research question that needs to be answered and a critical assessment with regard to whether or to what extent the chosen method can accomplish this – i.e. the “fit” between question and method [ 14 ]. It is necessary for these decisions to be documented when they are being made, and to be critically discussed when reporting methods and results.

Let us assume that our research aim is to examine the (clinical) processes around acute endovascular treatment (EVT), from the patient’s arrival at the emergency room to recanalization, with the aim to identify possible causes for delay and/or other causes for sub-optimal treatment outcome. As a first step, we could conduct a document study of the relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for this phase of care – are they up-to-date and in line with current guidelines? Do they contain any mistakes, irregularities or uncertainties that could cause delays or other problems? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the results have to be interpreted based on what they are: a written outline of what care processes in this hospital should look like. If we want to know what they actually look like in practice, we can conduct observations of the processes described in the SOPs. These results can (and should) be analysed in themselves, but also in comparison to the results of the document analysis, especially as regards relevant discrepancies. Do the SOPs outline specific tests for which no equipment can be observed or tasks to be performed by specialized nurses who are not present during the observation? It might also be possible that the written SOP is outdated, but the actual care provided is in line with current best practice. In order to find out why these discrepancies exist, it can be useful to conduct interviews. Are the physicians simply not aware of the SOPs (because their existence is limited to the hospital’s intranet) or do they actively disagree with them or does the infrastructure make it impossible to provide the care as described? Another rationale for adding interviews is that some situations (or all of their possible variations for different patient groups or the day, night or weekend shift) cannot practically or ethically be observed. In this case, it is possible to ask those involved to report on their actions – being aware that this is not the same as the actual observation. A senior physician’s or hospital manager’s description of certain situations might differ from a nurse’s or junior physician’s one, maybe because they intentionally misrepresent facts or maybe because different aspects of the process are visible or important to them. In some cases, it can also be relevant to consider to whom the interviewee is disclosing this information – someone they trust, someone they are otherwise not connected to, or someone they suspect or are aware of being in a potentially “dangerous” power relationship to them. Lastly, a focus group could be conducted with representatives of the relevant professional groups to explore how and why exactly they provide care around EVT. The discussion might reveal discrepancies (between SOPs and actual care or between different physicians) and motivations to the researchers as well as to the focus group members that they might not have been aware of themselves. For the focus group to deliver relevant information, attention has to be paid to its composition and conduct, for example, to make sure that all participants feel safe to disclose sensitive or potentially problematic information or that the discussion is not dominated by (senior) physicians only. The resulting combination of data collection methods is shown in Fig. 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Possible combination of data collection methods

Attributions for icons: “Book” by Serhii Smirnov, “Interview” by Adrien Coquet, FR, “Magnifying Glass” by anggun, ID, “Business communication” by Vectors Market; all from the Noun Project

The combination of multiple data source as described for this example can be referred to as “triangulation”, in which multiple measurements are carried out from different angles to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study [ 22 , 23 ].

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through observations, interviews and focus groups these need to be transcribed into protocols and transcripts (see Fig. 3 ). Interviews and focus groups can be transcribed verbatim , with or without annotations for behaviour (e.g. laughing, crying, pausing) and with or without phonetic transcription of dialects and filler words, depending on what is expected or known to be relevant for the analysis. In the next step, the protocols and transcripts are coded , that is, marked (or tagged, labelled) with one or more short descriptors of the content of a sentence or paragraph [ 2 , 15 , 23 ]. Jansen describes coding as “connecting the raw data with “theoretical” terms” [ 20 ]. In a more practical sense, coding makes raw data sortable. This makes it possible to extract and examine all segments describing, say, a tele-neurology consultation from multiple data sources (e.g. SOPs, emergency room observations, staff and patient interview). In a process of synthesis and abstraction, the codes are then grouped, summarised and/or categorised [ 15 , 20 ]. The end product of the coding or analysis process is a descriptive theory of the behavioural pattern under investigation [ 20 ]. The coding process is performed using qualitative data management software, the most common ones being InVivo, MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. It should be noted that these are data management tools which support the analysis performed by the researcher(s) [ 14 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig3_HTML.jpg

From data collection to data analysis

Attributions for icons: see Fig. Fig.2, 2 , also “Speech to text” by Trevor Dsouza, “Field Notes” by Mike O’Brien, US, “Voice Record” by ProSymbols, US, “Inspection” by Made, AU, and “Cloud” by Graphic Tigers; all from the Noun Project

How to report qualitative research?

Protocols of qualitative research can be published separately and in advance of the study results. However, the aim is not the same as in RCT protocols, i.e. to pre-define and set in stone the research questions and primary or secondary endpoints. Rather, it is a way to describe the research methods in detail, which might not be possible in the results paper given journals’ word limits. Qualitative research papers are usually longer than their quantitative counterparts to allow for deep understanding and so-called “thick description”. In the methods section, the focus is on transparency of the methods used, including why, how and by whom they were implemented in the specific study setting, so as to enable a discussion of whether and how this may have influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results section usually starts with a paragraph outlining the main findings, followed by more detailed descriptions of, for example, the commonalities, discrepancies or exceptions per category [ 20 ]. Here it is important to support main findings by relevant quotations, which may add information, context, emphasis or real-life examples [ 20 , 23 ]. It is subject to debate in the field whether it is relevant to state the exact number or percentage of respondents supporting a certain statement (e.g. “Five interviewees expressed negative feelings towards XYZ”) [ 21 ].

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

Qualitative methods can be combined with other methods in multi- or mixed methods designs, which “[employ] two or more different methods [ …] within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to one single method” [ 24 ]. Reasons for combining methods can be diverse, including triangulation for corroboration of findings, complementarity for illustration and clarification of results, expansion to extend the breadth and range of the study, explanation of (unexpected) results generated with one method with the help of another, or offsetting the weakness of one method with the strength of another [ 1 , 17 , 24 – 26 ]. The resulting designs can be classified according to when, why and how the different quantitative and/or qualitative data strands are combined. The three most common types of mixed method designs are the convergent parallel design , the explanatory sequential design and the exploratory sequential design. The designs with examples are shown in Fig. 4 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig4_HTML.jpg

Three common mixed methods designs

In the convergent parallel design, a qualitative study is conducted in parallel to and independently of a quantitative study, and the results of both studies are compared and combined at the stage of interpretation of results. Using the above example of EVT provision, this could entail setting up a quantitative EVT registry to measure process times and patient outcomes in parallel to conducting the qualitative research outlined above, and then comparing results. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to assess whether interview respondents’ subjective impressions of patients receiving good care match modified Rankin Scores at follow-up, or whether observed delays in care provision are exceptions or the rule when compared to door-to-needle times as documented in the registry. In the explanatory sequential design, a quantitative study is carried out first, followed by a qualitative study to help explain the results from the quantitative study. This would be an appropriate design if the registry alone had revealed relevant delays in door-to-needle times and the qualitative study would be used to understand where and why these occurred, and how they could be improved. In the exploratory design, the qualitative study is carried out first and its results help informing and building the quantitative study in the next step [ 26 ]. If the qualitative study around EVT provision had shown a high level of dissatisfaction among the staff members involved, a quantitative questionnaire investigating staff satisfaction could be set up in the next step, informed by the qualitative study on which topics dissatisfaction had been expressed. Amongst other things, the questionnaire design would make it possible to widen the reach of the research to more respondents from different (types of) hospitals, regions, countries or settings, and to conduct sub-group analyses for different professional groups.

How to assess qualitative research?

A variety of assessment criteria and lists have been developed for qualitative research, ranging in their focus and comprehensiveness [ 14 , 17 , 27 ]. However, none of these has been elevated to the “gold standard” in the field. In the following, we therefore focus on a set of commonly used assessment criteria that, from a practical standpoint, a researcher can look for when assessing a qualitative research report or paper.

Assessors should check the authors’ use of and adherence to the relevant reporting checklists (e.g. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)) to make sure all items that are relevant for this type of research are addressed [ 23 , 28 ]. Discussions of quantitative measures in addition to or instead of these qualitative measures can be a sign of lower quality of the research (paper). Providing and adhering to a checklist for qualitative research contributes to an important quality criterion for qualitative research, namely transparency [ 15 , 17 , 23 ].

Reflexivity

While methodological transparency and complete reporting is relevant for all types of research, some additional criteria must be taken into account for qualitative research. This includes what is called reflexivity, i.e. sensitivity to the relationship between the researcher and the researched, including how contact was established and maintained, or the background and experience of the researcher(s) involved in data collection and analysis. Depending on the research question and population to be researched this can be limited to professional experience, but it may also include gender, age or ethnicity [ 17 , 27 ]. These details are relevant because in qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, the researcher as a person cannot be isolated from the research process [ 23 ]. It may influence the conversation when an interviewed patient speaks to an interviewer who is a physician, or when an interviewee is asked to discuss a gynaecological procedure with a male interviewer, and therefore the reader must be made aware of these details [ 19 ].

Sampling and saturation

The aim of qualitative sampling is for all variants of the objects of observation that are deemed relevant for the study to be present in the sample “ to see the issue and its meanings from as many angles as possible” [ 1 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 ] , and to ensure “information-richness [ 15 ]. An iterative sampling approach is advised, in which data collection (e.g. five interviews) is followed by data analysis, followed by more data collection to find variants that are lacking in the current sample. This process continues until no new (relevant) information can be found and further sampling becomes redundant – which is called saturation [ 1 , 15 ] . In other words: qualitative data collection finds its end point not a priori , but when the research team determines that saturation has been reached [ 29 , 30 ].

This is also the reason why most qualitative studies use deliberate instead of random sampling strategies. This is generally referred to as “ purposive sampling” , in which researchers pre-define which types of participants or cases they need to include so as to cover all variations that are expected to be of relevance, based on the literature, previous experience or theory (i.e. theoretical sampling) [ 14 , 20 ]. Other types of purposive sampling include (but are not limited to) maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling or extreme or deviant case sampling [ 2 ]. In the above EVT example, a purposive sample could include all relevant professional groups and/or all relevant stakeholders (patients, relatives) and/or all relevant times of observation (day, night and weekend shift).

Assessors of qualitative research should check whether the considerations underlying the sampling strategy were sound and whether or how researchers tried to adapt and improve their strategies in stepwise or cyclical approaches between data collection and analysis to achieve saturation [ 14 ].

Good qualitative research is iterative in nature, i.e. it goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, revising and improving the approach where necessary. One example of this are pilot interviews, where different aspects of the interview (especially the interview guide, but also, for example, the site of the interview or whether the interview can be audio-recorded) are tested with a small number of respondents, evaluated and revised [ 19 ]. In doing so, the interviewer learns which wording or types of questions work best, or which is the best length of an interview with patients who have trouble concentrating for an extended time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to observations or focus groups which can also be piloted.

Ideally, coding should be performed by at least two researchers, especially at the beginning of the coding process when a common approach must be defined, including the establishment of a useful coding list (or tree), and when a common meaning of individual codes must be established [ 23 ]. An initial sub-set or all transcripts can be coded independently by the coders and then compared and consolidated after regular discussions in the research team. This is to make sure that codes are applied consistently to the research data.

Member checking

Member checking, also called respondent validation , refers to the practice of checking back with study respondents to see if the research is in line with their views [ 14 , 27 ]. This can happen after data collection or analysis or when first results are available [ 23 ]. For example, interviewees can be provided with (summaries of) their transcripts and asked whether they believe this to be a complete representation of their views or whether they would like to clarify or elaborate on their responses [ 17 ]. Respondents’ feedback on these issues then becomes part of the data collection and analysis [ 27 ].

Stakeholder involvement

In those niches where qualitative approaches have been able to evolve and grow, a new trend has seen the inclusion of patients and their representatives not only as study participants (i.e. “members”, see above) but as consultants to and active participants in the broader research process [ 31 – 33 ]. The underlying assumption is that patients and other stakeholders hold unique perspectives and experiences that add value beyond their own single story, making the research more relevant and beneficial to researchers, study participants and (future) patients alike [ 34 , 35 ]. Using the example of patients on or nearing dialysis, a recent scoping review found that 80% of clinical research did not address the top 10 research priorities identified by patients and caregivers [ 32 , 36 ]. In this sense, the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, especially patients and relatives, is increasingly being seen as a quality indicator in and of itself.

How not to assess qualitative research

The above overview does not include certain items that are routine in assessments of quantitative research. What follows is a non-exhaustive, non-representative, experience-based list of the quantitative criteria often applied to the assessment of qualitative research, as well as an explanation of the limited usefulness of these endeavours.

Protocol adherence

Given the openness and flexibility of qualitative research, it should not be assessed by how well it adheres to pre-determined and fixed strategies – in other words: its rigidity. Instead, the assessor should look for signs of adaptation and refinement based on lessons learned from earlier steps in the research process.

Sample size

For the reasons explained above, qualitative research does not require specific sample sizes, nor does it require that the sample size be determined a priori [ 1 , 14 , 27 , 37 – 39 ]. Sample size can only be a useful quality indicator when related to the research purpose, the chosen methodology and the composition of the sample, i.e. who was included and why.

Randomisation

While some authors argue that randomisation can be used in qualitative research, this is not commonly the case, as neither its feasibility nor its necessity or usefulness has been convincingly established for qualitative research [ 13 , 27 ]. Relevant disadvantages include the negative impact of a too large sample size as well as the possibility (or probability) of selecting “ quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate individuals ” [ 17 ]. Qualitative studies do not use control groups, either.

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

The concept of “interrater reliability” is sometimes used in qualitative research to assess to which extent the coding approach overlaps between the two co-coders. However, it is not clear what this measure tells us about the quality of the analysis [ 23 ]. This means that these scores can be included in qualitative research reports, preferably with some additional information on what the score means for the analysis, but it is not a requirement. Relatedly, it is not relevant for the quality or “objectivity” of qualitative research to separate those who recruited the study participants and collected and analysed the data. Experiences even show that it might be better to have the same person or team perform all of these tasks [ 20 ]. First, when researchers introduce themselves during recruitment this can enhance trust when the interview takes place days or weeks later with the same researcher. Second, when the audio-recording is transcribed for analysis, the researcher conducting the interviews will usually remember the interviewee and the specific interview situation during data analysis. This might be helpful in providing additional context information for interpretation of data, e.g. on whether something might have been meant as a joke [ 18 ].

Not being quantitative research

Being qualitative research instead of quantitative research should not be used as an assessment criterion if it is used irrespectively of the research problem at hand. Similarly, qualitative research should not be required to be combined with quantitative research per se – unless mixed methods research is judged as inherently better than single-method research. In this case, the same criterion should be applied for quantitative studies without a qualitative component.

The main take-away points of this paper are summarised in Table Table1. 1 . We aimed to show that, if conducted well, qualitative research can answer specific research questions that cannot to be adequately answered using (only) quantitative designs. Seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as equal will help us become more aware and critical of the “fit” between the research problem and our chosen methods: I can conduct an RCT to determine the reasons for transportation delays of acute stroke patients – but should I? It also provides us with a greater range of tools to tackle a greater range of research problems more appropriately and successfully, filling in the blind spots on one half of the methodological spectrum to better address the whole complexity of neurological research and practice.

Take-away-points


• Assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change) • What works for whom when, how and why? • Focussing on intervention improvement	• Document study • Observations (participant or non-participant) • Interviews (especially semi-structured) • Focus groups	• Transcription of audio-recordings and field notes into transcripts and protocols • Coding of protocols • Using qualitative data management software

• Combinations of quantitative and/or qualitative methods, e.g.: • : quali and quanti in parallel • : quanti followed by quali • : quali followed by quanti	• Checklists • Reflexivity • Sampling strategies • Piloting • Co-coding • Member checking • Stakeholder involvement	• Protocol adherence • Sample size • Randomization • Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks” • Not being quantitative research

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations.

EVT	Endovascular treatment
RCT	Randomised Controlled Trial
SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
SRQR	Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Authors’ contributions

LB drafted the manuscript; WW and CG revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final versions.

no external funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Chapter 13. Participant Observation

Introduction.

Although there are many possible forms of data collection in the qualitative researcher’s toolkit, the two predominant forms are interviewing and observing. This chapter and the following chapter explore observational data collection. While most observers also include interviewing, many interviewers do not also include observation. It takes some special skills and a certain confidence to be a successful observer. There is also a rich tradition of what I am going to call “deep ethnography” that will be covered in chapter 14. In this chapter, we tackle the basics of observational data collection.

What is Participant Observation?

While interviewing helps us understand how people make sense of their worlds, observing them helps us understand how they act and behave. Sometimes, these actions and behaviors belie what people think or say about their beliefs and values and practices. For example, a person can tell you they would never racially discriminate, but observing how they actually interact with racialized others might undercut those statements. This is not always about dishonesty. Most of us tend to act differently than we think we do or think we should. That is part of being human. If you are interested in what people say and believe , interviewing is a useful technique for data collection. If you are interested in how people act and behave , observing them is essential. And if you want to know both, particularly how thinking/believing and acting/behaving complement or contradict each other, then a combination of interviewing and observing is ideal.

There are a variety of terms we use for observational data collection, from ethnography to fieldwork to participant observation . Many researchers use these terms fairly interchangeably, but here I will separately define them. The subject of this chapter is observation in general, or participant observation, to highlight the fact that observers can also be participants. The subject of chapter 14 will be deep ethnography , a particularly immersive form of study that is attractive for a certain subset of qualitative researchers. Both participant observation and deep ethnography are forms of fieldwork in which the researcher leaves their office and goes into a natural setting to record observations that take place in that setting. [1]

Participant observation (PO) is a field approach to gathering data in which the researcher enters a specific site for purposes of engagement or observation. Participation and observation can be conceptualized as a continuum, and any given study can fall somewhere on that line between full participation (researcher is a member of the community or organization being studied) and observation (researcher pretends to be a fly on the wall surreptitiously but mostly by permission, recording what happens). Participant observation forms the heart of ethnographic research, an approach, if you remember, that seeks to understand and write about a particular culture or subculture. We’ll discuss what I am calling deep ethnography in the next chapter, where researchers often embed themselves for months if not years or even decades with a particular group to be able to fully capture “what it’s like.” But there are lighter versions of PO that can form the basis of a research study or that can supplement or work with other forms of data collection, such as interviews or archival research. This chapter will focus on these lighter versions, although note that much of what is said here can also apply to deep ethnography (chapter 14).

PO methods of gathering data present some special considerations—How involved is the researcher? How close is she to the subjects or site being studied? And how might her own social location—identity, position—affect the study? These are actually great questions for any kind of qualitative data collection but particularly apt when the researcher “enters the field,” so to speak. It is helpful to visualize where one falls on a continuum or series of continua (figure 13.1).

Let’s take a few examples and see how these continua work. Think about each of the following scenarios, and map them onto the possibilities of figure 13.1:

a nursing student during COVID doing research on patient/doctor interactions in the ICU
a graduate student accompanying a police officer during her rounds one day in a part of the city the graduate student has never visited
a professor raised Amish who goes back to her hometown to conduct research on Amish marriage practices for one month
(What if the sociologist was also a member of the OCF board and camping crew?)

Depending on how the researcher answers those questions and where they stand on the P.O. continuum, various techniques will be more or less effective. For example, in cases where the researcher is a participant, writing reflective fieldnotes at the end of the day may be the primary form of data collected. After all, if the researcher is fully participating, they probably don’t have the time or ability to pull out a notepad and ask people questions. On the other side, when a researcher is more of an observer, this is exactly what they might do, so long as the people they are interrogating are able to answer while they are going about their business. The more an observer, the more likely the researcher will engage in relatively structured interviews (using techniques discussed in chapters 11 and 12); the more a participant, the more likely casual conversations or “unstructured interviews” will form the core of the data collected. [2]

Observation and Qualitative Traditions

Observational techniques are used whenever the researcher wants to document actual behaviors and practices as they happen (not as they are explained or recorded historically). Many traditions of inquiry employ observational data collection, but not all traditions employ them in the same way. Chapter 14 will cover one very specific tradition: ethnography. Because the word ethnography is sometimes used for all fieldwork, I am calling the subject of chapter 14 deep ethnography, those studies that take as their focus the documentation through the description of a culture or subculture. Deeply immersive, this tradition of ethnography typically entails several months or even years in the field. But there are plenty of other uses of observation that are less burdensome to the researcher.

Grounded Theory, in which theories emerge from a rigorous and systematic process of induction, is amenable to both interviewing and observing forms of data collection, and some of the best Grounded Theory works employ a deft combination of both. Often closely aligned with Grounded Theory in sociology is the tradition of symbolic interactionism (SI). Interviews and observations in combination are necessary to properly address the SI question, What common understandings give meaning to people’s interactions ? Gary Alan Fine’s body of work fruitfully combines interviews and observations to build theory in response to this SI question. His Authors of the Storm: Meteorologists and the Culture of Prediction is based on field observation and interviews at the Storm Prediction Center in Oklahoma; the National Weather Service in Washington, DC; and a few regional weather forecasting outlets in the Midwest. Using what he heard and what he observed, he builds a theory of weather forecasting based on social and cultural factors that take place inside local offices. In Morel Tales: The Culture of Mushrooming , Fine investigates the world of mushroom hunters through participant observation and interviews, eventually building a theory of “naturework” to describe how the meanings people hold about the world are constructed and are socially organized—our understanding of “nature” is based on human nature, if you will.

Phenomenology typically foregrounds interviewing, as the purpose of this tradition is to gather people’s understandings and meanings about a phenomenon. However, it is quite common for phenomenological interviewing to be supplemented with some observational data, especially as a check on the “reality” of the situations being described by those interviewed. In my own work, for example, I supplemented primary interviews with working-class college students with some participant observational work on the campus in which they were studying. This helped me gather information on the general silence about class on campus, which made the salience of class in the interviews even more striking ( Hurst 2010a ).

Critical theories such as standpoint approaches, feminist theory, and Critical Race Theory are often multimethod in design. Interviews, observations (possibly participation), and archival/historical data are all employed to gather an understanding of how a group of persons experiences a particular setting or institution or phenomenon and how things can be made more just . In Making Elite Lawyers , Robert Granfield ( 1992 ) drew on both classroom observations and in-depth interviews with students to document the conservatizing effects of the Harvard legal education on working-class students, female students, and students of color. In this case, stories recounted by students were amplified by searing examples of discrimination and bias observed by Granfield and reported in full detail through his fieldnotes.

Entry Access and Issues

Managing your entry into a field site is one of the most important and nerve-wracking aspects of doing ethnographic research. Unlike interviews, which can be conducted in neutral settings, the field is an actual place with its own rules and customs that you are seeking to explore. How you “gain access” will depend on what kind of field you are entering. If your field site is a physical location with walls and a front desk (such as an office building or an elementary school), you will need permission from someone in the organization to enter and to conduct your study. Negotiating this might take weeks or even months. If your field site is a public site (such as a public dog park or city sidewalks), there is no “official” gatekeeper, but you will still probably need to find a person present at the site who can vouch for you (e.g., other dog owners or people hanging out on their stoops). [3] And if your field site is semipublic, as in a shopping mall, you might have to weigh the pros and cons of gaining “official” permission, as this might impede your progress or be difficult to ascertain whose permission to request. If you recall, many of the ethical dilemmas discussed in chapter 7 were about just such issues.

Even with official (or unofficial) permission to enter the site, however, your quest to gain access is not done. You will still need to gain the trust and permission of the people you encounter at that site. If you are a mere observer in a public setting, you probably do not need each person you observe to sign a consent form, but if you are a participant in an event or enterprise who is also taking notes and asking people questions, you probably do. Each study is unique here, so I recommend talking through the ethics of permission and consent seeking with a faculty mentor.

A separate but related issue from permission is how you will introduce yourself and your presence. How you introduce yourself to people in the field will depend very much on what level of participation you have chosen as well as whether you are an insider or outsider. Sometimes your presence will go unremarked, whereas other times you may stick out like a very sore thumb. Lareau ( 2021 ) advises that you be “vague but accurate” when explaining your presence. You don’t want to use academic jargon (unless your field is the academy!) that would be off-putting to the people you meet. Nor do you want to deceive anyone. “Hi, I’m Allison, and I am here to observe how students use career services” is accurate and simple and more effective than “I am here to study how race, class, and gender affect college students’ interactions with career services personnel.”

Researcher Note

Something that surprised me and that I still think about a lot is how to explain to respondents what I’m doing and why and how to help them feel comfortable with field work. When I was planning fieldwork for my dissertation, I was thinking of it from a researcher’s perspective and not from a respondent’s perspective. It wasn’t until I got into the field that I started to realize what a strange thing I was planning to spend my time on and asking others to allow me to do. Like, can I follow you around and write notes? This varied a bit by site—it was easier to ask to sit in on meetings, for example—but asking people to let me spend a lot of time with them was awkward for me and for them. I ended up asking if I could shadow them, a verb that seemed to make clear what I hoped to be able to do. But even this didn’t get around issues like respondents’ self-consciousness or my own. For example, respondents sometimes told me that their lives were “boring” and that they felt embarrassed to have someone else shadow them when they weren’t “doing anything.” Similarly, I would feel uncomfortable in social settings where I knew only one person. Taking field notes is not something to do at a party, and when introduced as a researcher, people would sometimes ask, “So are you researching me right now?” The answer to that is always yes. I figured out ways of taking notes that worked (I often sent myself text messages with jotted notes) and how to get more comfortable explaining what I wanted to be able to do (wanting to see the campus from the respondent’s perspective, for example), but it is still something I work to improve.

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

Reflexivity in Fieldwork

As always, being aware of who you are, how you are likely to be read by others in the field, and how your own experiences and understandings of the world are likely to affect your reading of others in the field are all very important to conducting successful research. When Annette Lareau ( 2021 ) was managing a team of graduate student researchers in her study of parents and children, she noticed that her middle-class graduate students took in stride the fact that children called adults by their first names, while her working-class-origin graduate students “were shocked by what they considered the rudeness and disrespect middle-class children showed toward their parents and other adults” ( 151 ). This “finding” emerged from particular fieldnotes taken by particular research assistants. Having graduate students with different class backgrounds turned out to be useful. Being reflexive in this case meant interrogating one’s own expectations about how children should act toward adults. Creating thick descriptions in the fieldnotes (e.g., describing how children name adults) is important, but thinking about one’s response to those descriptions is equally so. Without reflection, it is possible that important aspects never even make it into the fieldnotes because they seem “unremarkable.”

The Data of Observational Work: Fieldnotes

In interview data collection, recordings of interviews are transcribed into the data of the study. This is not possible for much PO work because (1) aural recordings of observations aren’t possible and (2) conversations that take place on-site are not easily recorded. Instead, the participant observer takes notes, either during the fieldwork or at the day’s end. These notes, called “fieldnotes,” are then the primary form of data for PO work.

Writing fieldnotes takes a lot of time. Because fieldnotes are your primary form of data, you cannot be stingy with the time it takes. Most practitioners suggest it takes at least the same amount of time to write up notes as it takes to be in the field, and many suggest it takes double the time. If you spend three hours at a meeting of the organization you are observing, it is a good idea to set aside five to six hours to write out your fieldnotes. Different researchers use different strategies about how and when to do this. Somewhat obviously, the earlier you can write down your notes, the more likely they are to be accurate. Writing them down at the end of the day is thus the default practice. However, if you are plainly exhausted, spending several hours trying to recall important details may be counterproductive. Writing fieldnotes the next morning, when you are refreshed and alert, may work better.

Reseaarcher Note

How do you take fieldnotes ? Any advice for those wanting to conduct an ethnographic study?

Fieldnotes are so important, especially for qualitative researchers. A little advice when considering how you approach fieldnotes: Record as much as possible! Sometimes I write down fieldnotes, and I often audio-record them as well to transcribe later. Sometimes the space to speak what I observed is helpful and allows me to be able to go a little more in-depth or to talk out something that I might not quite have the words for just yet. Within my fieldnote, I include feelings and think about the following questions: How do I feel before data collection? How did I feel when I was engaging/watching? How do I feel after data collection? What was going on for me before this particular data collection? What did I notice about how folks were engaging? How were participants feeling, and how do I know this? Is there anything that seems different than other data collections? What might be going on in the world that might be impacting the participants? As a qualitative researcher, it’s also important to remember our own influences on the research—our feelings or current world news may impact how we observe or what we might capture in fieldnotes.

—Kim McAloney, PhD, College Student Services Administration Ecampus coordinator and instructor

What should be included in those fieldnotes? The obvious answer is “everything you observed and heard relevant to your research question.” The difficulty is that you often don’t know what is relevant to your research question when you begin, as your research question itself can develop and transform during the course of your observations. For example, let us say you begin a study of second-grade classrooms with the idea that you will observe gender dynamics between both teacher and students and students and students. But after five weeks of observation, you realize you are taking a lot of notes about how teachers validate certain attention-seeking behaviors among some students while ignoring those of others. For example, when Daisy (White female) interrupts a discussion on frogs to tell everyone she has a frog named Ribbit, the teacher smiles and asks her to tell the students what Ribbit is like. In contrast, when Solomon (Black male) interrupts a discussion on the planets to tell everyone his big brother is called Jupiter by their stepfather, the teacher frowns and shushes him. These notes spark interest in how teachers favor and develop some students over others and the role of gender, race, and class in these teacher practices. You then begin to be much more careful in recording these observations, and you are a little less attentive to the gender dynamics among students. But note that had you not been fairly thorough in the first place, these crucial insights about teacher favoritism might never have been made.

Here are some suggestions for things to include in your fieldnotes as you begin: (1) descriptions of the physical setting; (2) people in the site: who they are and how they interact with one another (what roles they are taking on); and (3) things overheard: conversations, exchanges, questions. While you should develop your own personal system for organizing these fieldnotes (computer vs. printed journal, for example), at a minimum, each set of fieldnotes should include the date, time in the field, persons observed, and location specifics. You might also add keywords to each set so that you can search by names of participants, dates, and locations. Lareau ( 2021:167 ) recommends covering the following key issues, which mnemonically spell out WRITE— W : who, what, when, where, how; R: reaction (responses to the action in question and the response to the response); I: inaction (silence or nonverbal response to an action); T: timing (how slowly or quickly someone is speaking); and E: emotions (nonverbal signs of emotion and/or stoicism).

In addition to the observational fieldnotes, if you have time, it is a good practice to write reflective memos in which you ask yourself what you have learned (either about the study or about your abilities in the field). If you don’t have time to do this for every set of fieldnotes, at least get in the practice of memoing at certain key junctures, perhaps after reading through a certain number of fieldnotes (e.g., every third day of fieldnotes, you set aside two hours to read through the notes and memo). These memos can then be appended to relevant fieldnotes. You will be grateful for them when it comes time to analyze your data, as they are a preliminary by-the-seat-of-your-pants analysis. They also help steer you toward the study you want to pursue rather than allow you to wallow in unfocused data.

Ethics of Fieldwork

Because most fieldwork requires multiple and intense interactions (even if merely observational) with real living people as they go about their business, there are potentially more ethical choices to be made. In addition to the ethics of gaining entry and permission discussed above, there are issues of accurate representation, of respecting privacy, of adequate financial compensation, and sometimes of financial and other forms of assistance (when observing/interacting with low-income persons or other marginalized populations). In other words, the ethical decision of fieldwork is never concluded by obtaining a signature on a consent form. Read this brief selection from Pascale’s ( 2021 ) methods description (observation plus interviews) to see how many ethical decisions she made:

Throughout I kept detailed ethnographic field and interview records, which included written notes, recorded notes, and photographs. I asked everyone who was willing to sit for a formal interview to speak only for themselves and offered each of them a prepaid Visa Card worth $25–40. I also offered everyone the opportunity to keep the card and erase the tape completely at any time they were dissatisfied with the interview in any way. No one asked for the tape to be erased; rather, people remarked on the interview being a really good experience because they felt heard. Each interview was professionally transcribed and for the most part the excerpts in this book are literal transcriptions. In a few places, the excerpta have been edited to reduce colloquial features of speech (e.g., you know, like, um) and some recursive elements common to spoken language. A few excerpts were placed into standard English for clarity. I made this choice for the benefit of readers who might otherwise find the insights and ideas harder to parse in the original. However, I have to acknowledge this as an act of class-based violence. I tried to keep the original phrasing whenever possible. ( 235 )

Summary Checklist for Successful Participant Observation

The following are ten suggestions for being successful in the field, slightly paraphrased from Patton ( 2002:331 ). Here, I take those ten suggestions and turn them into an extended “checklist” to use when designing and conducting fieldwork.

Consider all possible approaches to your field and your position relative to that field (see figure 13.2). Choose wisely and purposely. If you have access to a particular site or are part of a particular culture, consider the advantages (and disadvantages) of pursuing research in that area. Clarify the amount of disclosure you are willing to share with those you are observing, and justify that decision.
Take thorough and descriptive field notes. Consider how you will record them. Where your research is located will affect what kinds of field notes you can take and when, but do not fail to write them! Commit to a regular recording time. Your field notes will probably be the primary data source you collect, so your study’s success will depend on thick descriptions and analytical memos you write to yourself about what you are observing.
Permit yourself to be flexible. Consider alternative lines of inquiry as you proceed. You might enter the field expecting to find something only to have your attention grabbed by something else entirely. This is perfectly fine (and, in some traditions, absolutely crucial for excellent results). When you do see your attention shift to an emerging new focus, take a step back, look at your original research design, and make careful decisions about what might need revising to adapt to these new circumstances.
Include triangulated data as a means of checking your observations. If you are that ICU nurse watching patient/doctor interactions, you might want to add a few interviews with patients to verify your interpretation of the interaction. Or perhaps pull some public data on the number of arrests for jaywalking if you are the student accompanying police on their rounds to find out if the large number of arrests you witnessed was typical.
Respect the people you are witnessing and recording, and allow them to speak for themselves whenever possible. Using direct quotes (recorded in your field notes or as supplementary recorded interviews) is another way to check the validity of the analyses of your observations. When designing your research, think about how you can ensure the voices of those you are interested in get included.
Choose your informants wisely. Who are they relative to the field you are exploring? What are the limitations (ethical and strategic) in using those particular informants, guides, and gatekeepers? Limit your reliance on them to the extent possible.
Consider all the stages of fieldwork, and have appropriate plans for each. Recognize that different talents are required at different stages of the data-collection process. In the beginning, you will probably spend a great deal of time building trust and rapport and will have less time to focus on what is actually occurring. That’s normal. Later, however, you will want to be more focused on and disciplined in collecting data while also still attending to maintaining relationships necessary for your study’s success. Sometimes, especially when you have been invited to the site, those granting access to you will ask for feedback. Be strategic about when giving that feedback is appropriate. Consider how to extricate yourself from the site and the participants when your study is coming to an end. Have an ethical exit plan.
Allow yourself to be immersed in the scene you are observing. This is true even if you are observing a site as an outsider just one time. Make an effort to see things through the eyes of the participants while at the same time maintaining an analytical stance. This is a tricky balance to do, of course, and is more of an art than a science. Practice it. Read about how others have achieved it.
Create a practice of separating your descriptive notes from your analytical observations. This may be as clear as dividing a sheet of paper into two columns, one for description only and the other for questions or interpretation (as we saw in chapter 11 on interviewing), or it may mean separating out the time you dedicate to descriptions from the time you reread and think deeply about those detailed descriptions. However you decide to do it, recognize that these are two separate activities, both of which are essential to your study’s success.
As always with qualitative research, be reflective and reflexive. Do not forget how your own experience and social location may affect both your interpretation of what you observe and the very things you observe themselves (e.g., where a patient says more forgiving things about an observably rude doctor because they read you, a nursing student, as likely to report any negative comments back to the doctor). Keep a research journal!

Qualitative study design: Observation

Qualitative study design
Phenomenology
Grounded theory
Ethnography
Narrative inquiry
Action research
Case Studies
Field research
Focus groups

Observation

Surveys & questionnaires
Study Designs Home

A way to gather data by watching people, events, or noting physical characteristics in their natural setting. Seeks to answer the question: “What is going on here?”. While rooted in ethnographic research it can be applied to other methodologies. Observations may often be supplemented with interviews.

There are three main categories:

Participant observation

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; must remain detached.
Technology can be useful (i.e. video, audio recording).

Indirect Observation

Results of an interaction, process or behaviour 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).

Observations may be unstructured, semi-structured or structured. The latter two involve the use of an observation template that includes prompting questions such as: “What are people doing?”; “What are they trying to accomplish?”; How are they doing this?” etc.

What form does observation take?

Field notes; audio and video recordings.

Allows for insight into contexts, relationships, and behaviours;
Can provide information previously unknown to researchers that is crucial for project design, data collection, and interpretation of other data.

Limitations

Not suited to all research inquiries since not all phenomena can be observed.
Time-consuming.
Documentation relies on memory, personal discipline, and diligence of researcher.
Requires conscious effort at objectivity because method is inherently subjective.
Critics maintain that different observers will make different observations of the same phenomena so that no single account can be held up as the source of truth.

Example questions

How do members of operating theatres communicate with each other?
How do nurses interact with their patients when administering medication?
How do parents deal with their adolescent children who suffer chronic pain?

Example studies

Bolster, D., & Manias, E. (2010). Person-centred interactions between nurses and patients during medication activities in an acute hospital setting: Qualitative observation and interview study. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 47(2), 154-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.021
Bombeke, K., De Winter, B., Debaene, L., Van Royen, P., Van Roosbroeck, S., Van Hal, G., & Schol, S. (2011). Medical students trained in communication skills show a decline in patient-centred attitudes: An observational study comparing two cohorts during clinical clerkships . Patient Education and Counseling , 84(3), 310-318. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.03.007
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909
Holloway, I. & Galvin, K. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (Fourth ed.) John Wiley & Sons Inc.
<< Previous: Focus groups
Next: Documents >>
Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 11:46 AM
URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods

Direct Observation, Interviews, Participation, Immersion, Focus Groups

Research, Samples, and Statistics
Key Concepts
Major Sociologists
News & Issues
Recommended Reading
Archaeology

Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from these data that help understand social life through the study of targeted populations or places.

People often frame it in opposition to quantitative research , which uses numerical data to identify large-scale trends and employs statistical operations to determine causal and correlative relationships between variables.

Within sociology, qualitative research is typically focused on the micro-level of social interaction that composes everyday life, whereas quantitative research typically focuses on macro-level trends and phenomena.

Key Takeaways

Methods of qualitative research include:

observation and immersion
open-ended surveys
focus groups
content analysis of visual and textual materials
oral history

Qualitative research has a long history in sociology and has been used within it for as long as the field has existed.

This type of research has long appealed to social scientists because it allows the researchers to investigate the meanings people attribute to their behavior, actions, and interactions with others.

While quantitative research is useful for identifying relationships between variables, like, for example, the connection between poverty and racial hate, it is qualitative research that can illuminate why this connection exists by going directly to the source—the people themselves.

Qualitative research is designed to reveal the meaning that informs the action or outcomes that are typically measured by quantitative research. So qualitative researchers investigate meanings, interpretations, symbols, and the processes and relations of social life.

What this type of research produces is descriptive data that the researcher must then interpret using rigorous and systematic methods of transcribing, coding, and analysis of trends and themes.

Because its focus is everyday life and people's experiences, qualitative research lends itself well to creating new theories using the inductive method , which can then be tested with further research.

Qualitative researchers use their own eyes, ears, and intelligence to collect in-depth perceptions and descriptions of targeted populations, places, and events.

Their findings are collected through a variety of methods, and often a researcher will use at least two or several of the following while conducting a qualitative study:

Direct observation : With direct observation, a researcher studies people as they go about their daily lives without participating or interfering. This type of research is often unknown to those under study, and as such, must be conducted in public settings where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, a researcher might observe the ways in which strangers interact in public as they gather to watch a street performer.
Open-ended surveys : While many surveys are designed to generate quantitative data, many are also designed with open-ended questions that allow for the generation and analysis of qualitative data. For example, a survey might be used to investigate not just which political candidates voters chose, but why they chose them, in their own words.
Focus group : In a focus group, a researcher engages a small group of participants in a conversation designed to generate data relevant to the research question. Focus groups can contain anywhere from 5 to 15 participants. Social scientists often use them in studies that examine an event or trend that occurs within a specific community. They are common in market research, too.
In-depth interviews : Researchers conduct in-depth interviews by speaking with participants in a one-on-one setting. Sometimes a researcher approaches the interview with a predetermined list of questions or topics for discussion but allows the conversation to evolve based on how the participant responds. Other times, the researcher has identified certain topics of interest but does not have a formal guide for the conversation, but allows the participant to guide it.
Oral history : The oral history method is used to create a historical account of an event, group, or community, and typically involves a series of in-depth interviews conducted with one or multiple participants over an extended period.
Participant observation : This method is similar to observation, however with this one, the researcher also participates in the action or events to not only observe others but to gain the first-hand experience in the setting.
Ethnographic observation : Ethnographic observation is the most intensive and in-depth observational method. Originating in anthropology, with this method, a researcher fully immerses themselves into the research setting and lives among the participants as one of them for anywhere from months to years. By doing this, the researcher attempts to experience day-to-day existence from the viewpoints of those studied to develop in-depth and long-term accounts of the community, events, or trends under observation.
Content analysis : This method is used by sociologists to analyze social life by interpreting words and images from documents, film, art, music, and other cultural products and media. The researchers look at how the words and images are used, and the context in which they are used to draw inferences about the underlying culture. Content analysis of digital material, especially that generated by social media users, has become a popular technique within the social sciences.

While much of the data generated by qualitative research is coded and analyzed using just the researcher's eyes and brain, the use of computer software to do these processes is increasingly popular within the social sciences.

Such software analysis works well when the data is too large for humans to handle, though the lack of a human interpreter is a common criticism of the use of computer software.

Pros and Cons

Qualitative research has both benefits and drawbacks.

On the plus side, it creates an in-depth understanding of the attitudes, behaviors, interactions, events, and social processes that comprise everyday life. In doing so, it helps social scientists understand how everyday life is influenced by society-wide things like social structure , social order , and all kinds of social forces.

This set of methods also has the benefit of being flexible and easily adaptable to changes in the research environment and can be conducted with minimal cost in many cases.

Among the downsides of qualitative research is that its scope is fairly limited so its findings are not always widely able to be generalized.

Researchers also have to use caution with these methods to ensure that they do not influence the data in ways that significantly change it and that they do not bring undue personal bias to their interpretation of the findings.

Fortunately, qualitative researchers receive rigorous training designed to eliminate or reduce these types of research bias.

How to Conduct a Sociology Research Interview
What Is Participant Observation Research?
Immersion Definition: Cultural, Language, and Virtual
Definition and Overview of Grounded Theory
The Differences Between Indexes and Scales
Pros and Cons of Secondary Data Analysis
Social Surveys: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Telephone Polls
The Different Types of Sampling Designs in Sociology
Principal Components and Factor Analysis
Sociology Explains Why Some People Cheat on Their Spouses
Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning
How to Construct an Index for Research
Data Sources For Sociological Research
A Review of Software Tools for Quantitative Data Analysis
Constructing a Deductive Theory
Scales Used in Social Science Research

Instant insights, infinite possibilities

Understanding qualitative observation

Last updated

20 March 2023

Reviewed by

Tanya Williams

You can easily analyze quantitative data, making it an ideal resource for researchers looking to understand complex topics. But not everything is quantifiable.

Analyze qualitative observations

Get better insights into customer behavior when you analyze qualitative observation data in Dovetail

What is qualitative observation?

Because research often relies on data that we can't easily put into objective numbers, researchers rely on non-numerical data for some of their studies.

Qualitative observation is one way of gathering that data. When researchers deploy this method, they collect their data by directly observing the people, behaviors, or events they're studying.

Qualitative observation relies on a more subjective approach than quantitative analysis, but it remains a powerful tool for suitable areas.

Qualitative vs. quantitative observation

Many people wonder which method is better. Is qualitative observation better than quantitative, or vice-versa? The answer depends entirely on the subject you’re studying.

You should always opt for obtaining hard, objective data when possible. When it isn't possible, qualitative observation can fill in many missing gaps.

Ultimately, researchers shouldn't view these as two competing methodologies. They are great tools for developing a complete picture of complex topics.

Characteristics of qualitative observation

Researchers choose qualitative observation to generate meaningful and context-specific insights into social phenomena that are otherwise hard to measure.

They must rely on distinct characteristics to guide their research and help them interpret the data they uncover to gain accurate insights without quantifiable data.

Here are some of these characteristics:

Naturalistic inquiry

Qualitative observation rarely occurs in controlled laboratory environments, as naturalistic inquiry studies people in their natural context. When people are in a laboratory setting, they are prone to change their behavior. More natural settings put them at ease and make them feel less like study subjects.

Participant observation

To gain a deeper understanding of the topic you’re studying, you can actively participate in the activities or events you’re observing. You learn more about the subject by engaging directly with it and recording your experiences.

Sensitivity to context

Social norms, power dynamics, and historical factors can shape beliefs and behaviors.

For example, a researcher in a position of power over a participant may make the person feel uncomfortable. Residents of countries with a long history of slavery may find race-related topics more challenging to discuss than in other countries.

These factors become variables that a qualitative observer must control for. It’s vital to be aware of how a person's experiences might shape their perceptions.

Reflexivity

Researchers are humans too. They're subject to the same factors that impact their subject's beliefs. Researchers must actively examine how their perceptions and biases may cloud how they interpret the data.

Empathic neutrality

In addition to using reflexivity to examine their biases, researchers must remain neutral and unbiased when conducting their study. They must empathize with the perspectives and experiences of the participants, even when they disagree with them.

Researchers should aim to understand and appreciate the participants' experiences without imposing their views or judgments on them.

Subjectivity

Objectivity is impossible with qualitative observation. Researchers who employ qualitative observation must be aware of this fact. Acknowledging that they won't gain objective truth about human behavior and experience while using the method is vital. It allows them to be open to alternative interpretations of the data, all of which may be valid.

While engaging in qualitative observations, researchers must recognize the unique aspects of each individual and situation they’re studying. This involves being attentive to the nuances of the data and avoiding generalizations or stereotypes that may overlook the complexity of human behavior and experience.

Inductive reasoning

Studying objective subjects is often deductive: Researchers start with a hypothesis and gather data to test it. Subjective areas of study are the opposite. Inductive reasoning involves gathering and examining the data to develop theories and insights into what they learned.

What are the types of qualitative observation?

Qualitative observation is a powerful research method you can apply to many situations. As each situation is unique, choosing the right approach is essential.

You can employ several types of qualitative observation, which all have strengths and limitations:

Direct observation

This method allows researchers to observe and record behavior as it occurs in its natural setting. This type of observation can come in many forms; researchers may casually observe the subject or engage in a more structured, systematic observation.

Direct observation can be beneficial for studying complex social interactions and behaviors that are difficult to capture through other methods.

Case studies

These involve an in-depth analysis of an individual, group, or event. Researchers collect as much information as possible about the case under investigation, reading interviews, documentation, and more to develop their understanding.

Case studies are particularly useful for studying rare or unusual phenomena you may not easily observe through other methods.

Researcher as participant

In this method, the researcher becomes part of the group and participates in its activities and interactions. This approach can give researchers a unique way to better understand how the people they're studying feel about a topic.

However, the researcher's role in the group can influence group behavior. Researchers who use this method must be extra careful to be neutral participants.

Sometimes, the best way to understand how someone feels about something is simply to talk to them. Interviews can take two forms:

Structured , with a pre-defined set of questions

Unstructured , with open-ended questions and flexible conversation.

Well-conducted interviews can provide rich, detailed data about individual experiences, attitudes, and beliefs.

Focus groups

In this type of interview, researchers bring together a small group to discuss a specific topic or issue. They can facilitate the discussion and record what the study participants say.

Focus groups can provide insights into group dynamics and the range of perspectives and opinions.

Examples of qualitative observation

Let’s look at real-world examples of how researchers use qualitative observation in different professions.

An ethnographer studying the social dynamics, cultural practices, and relationships within the community might live among the community members and observe their behavior. Doing so can give them a deeper understanding of how the community thinks and operates.

A psychologist studying the subjective experiences of mental illness may want to understand the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with specific disorders. The psychologist can gain insights into how people experience their symptoms through detailed interviews.

A sociologist studying protesters' motivations, perspectives, and social movements might observe and record their behavior. This information will help the researcher understand how individuals and groups approach protests and express their political views.

A teacher may be studying students' learning and communication patterns in the classroom. The teacher can learn how their students work together and alone to solve problems and share knowledge by observing and recording their interactions.

A case study researcher may want to study the experiences, behaviors, and perspectives of a single individual or group, such as a patient with a rare disease. They might conduct in-depth interviews and observe the patient’s behavior. Studying enough examples in this way can help the researcher understand their subject’s unique situation.

A journalist may be researching the stories and experiences of people impacted by a particular issue, such as homelessness or immigration. The journalist can gain insights into their struggles, challenges, and aspirations by conducting interviews.

An artist seeking to capture the unique qualities and character of a particular location or community through their artwork might observe the place or people firsthand. This way, the artist can create artwork that reflects the perspective of the subject matter.

A software development team developing a new product might invite potential users to try it out. Observing their experiences as they navigate the product's various functions means the team can gain important insights. It can help them determine where usability issues may occur and refine the product’s interface or instructions.

Qualitative observation is a great way to generate meaningful insights into subjects where numbers aren’t enough. Using the correct methods means you’ll have rich, valuable data for your study even when it’s not easily measurable.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Qualitative vs.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

What is Qualitative Observation?

Observations in research methods

Uses for qualitative observations, what are qualitative observation examples, qualitative observation characteristics, what are the types of qualitative observation, observation data in qualitative research, considerations for observational research.

Let's learn about the method of qualitative observations and the types of observations, then look at some helpful examples.

Uses for qualitative observation

Observation exists as a research method that collects data based on what is observed or experienced.

While data from an experiment is structured and assumes a form that provides for easy data analysis , observation data can adopt as many forms as can be perceived by the researcher.

As a result, the data can be text, audio, images, or even video , all of which can be subject to data analysis through qualitative or quantitative methods .

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative observations?

There are qualitative and quantitative observations. A quantitative observation can involve measurements of the numerical value of observed phenomena (e.g., the size of a crowd or the weight of an object). The quantitative data collected from such an observation might be helpful for a statistical research study in contexts where the theory is already established and needs confirmation or critique.

On the other hand, a qualitative observation adopts a naturalistic inquiry to understand a phenomenon whose attributes may not be quantified. Qualitative researchers might be more interested in capturing data about the physical appearance of certain people, the sounds of a particular event, or the feel of a specific texture in building materials.

To understand qualitative observation, let's list some contexts where qualitative researchers conduct observational research .

client management
market research
health research
classroom pedagogy

This method deals with many different topics, including:

sleep patterns of long-term patients
personal contact between individuals
animal behavior in the presence of humans
reproductive behavior of endangered species
environmental conditions in a species' natural habitat

Direct observation is ideal for these sorts of inquiries, as experimental or quantitative research cannot capture the sort of rich data found in a natural environment.

This means that qualitative observation often requires more than textual description . For example, when a researcher wants to compare how supporters of a particular sports team might interact with other fans, they may want to document different styles of clothing or the sounds and images associated with each sports team.

In such cases, the researcher will want to employ a data collection method that documents video, audio, and images for later discussion. An especially illustrative picture collected for this study can provide a helpful example to research audiences of the culture being discussed.

Here are several examples to consider:

observing how people walk through a busy train station during rush hour
observing how students in a cooking class learn how to make a dish
observing how new mothers hold their newborns while recovering
observing how people at a zoo get closer to and interact with the animals
observing how managers at a company train and give feedback to new employees

Often, a textual description of each example may only give you basic insights about each experience.

However, imagine what sensory information you might need to fully understand the experiences in each example in this list.

Consider the following sentence:

"The people in the train station walked to the track leading to their destination."

This provides some surface details, but is it deep enough for readers to feel the experience?

The researcher's role in this case is to observe these contexts and, later on, immerse the research audience with the sensory data from those situations:

The crowd got louder as they rushed for the train.
The smell of butter was in the air as students kneaded the bread.
The mother said her new daughter's skin was smooth.
The children laughed when the penguins splashed them with cold water.
The manager wore a dark suit, while his employees wore white coats.

In contrast with typical experimental research, observing has several important traits to consider.

the researcher is the main source of data
there are no wrong answers, as readers rely on what the researcher senses
people may differ on what the sensory information might mean

There is no one qualitative observation definition as it can take on many forms. Generally, there are no right or wrong answers regarding how to observe.

While the different types of qualitative observation may differ in how the researcher engages participants, the process in which they gather data for sensory information is largely the same.

Naturalistic observation

This type of research study involves direct observation of a natural environment and having the researcher document what they see, either in field notes or recorded media .

A researcher can observe from afar and take notes about the sensory information they receive.

This is the simplest method that a researcher can employ. People may also see this method as the most objective as it removes the researcher from the environment altogether.

Participant observation

This kind of qualitative observation relies on the researchers gathering information through participation and reporting on their personal experiences within a given context.

Unlike naturalistic observation, where the researcher can be a complete observer, active participation can collect information about a cultural process or ritual whose essence can only be understood firsthand.

In a complete participant observation, researchers can also ask direct questions to those they observe to gather their perspectives about the process in which they participate. This allows observers to view a culture's characteristics from different angles, rather than rely on one subjective view alone.

Structured observation

In a structured qualitative observation, the researcher isolates their research participants to elicit and observe a certain set of behavioral responses.

For example, a researcher may provide children with some toys in a room to see how they will respond.

Structured observation may also be useful for quantitative observation, especially if the research inquiry relies on observing quantifiable phenomena that might be easier to capture in a controlled setting. Either way, observing people in this manner may not capture the natural part of interactions and behaviors that might exist in a natural environment.

Longitudinal observation

All qualitative observation can be time-consuming, but longitudinal observation can involve the researcher in several weeks or months of study. Examples of qualitative observation that are necessarily longitudinal include studies of academic performance over time, quality of life in palliative care, and impacts of climate change on communities.

These inquiries not only identify examples of phenomena in discrete moments but also across long periods. Researchers conducting qualitative observation over a longitudinal scale should be prepared to observe changes in participants that are otherwise invisible at any particular moment in a study.

Ready to try out ATLAS.ti?

Powerful analysis tools are just a click away, starting with a free trial.

Qualitative data from an observation relies on the researcher's sensory organs to describe the context of the study .

What do researchers see? What do they hear or smell?

While this may not necessarily sound scientific, qualitative observation can provide many an example of the characteristics of sensory phenomena that may not be available in a basic, textual description of research.

ATLAS.ti is especially useful for analysis of qualitative observation data . Qualitative data can take on many different formats from plain text to video files to PDF documents. This is especially important when the qualitative observation method relies on the five senses for qualitative data collection .

In Document Manager, researchers can create projects in ATLAS.ti to store all of their various project-related files for easy and efficient analysis later.

Qualitative observations have particular characteristics that set them apart from other qualitative or experimental methods.

Researcher subjectivity

One of the most common critiques of qualitative observation is that it generates subjective data , given that subjective methods are employed to gather data and can be limited by personal bias . When discussing qualitative observations, the researcher should take care to acknowledge and express their own biases to their research audiences to establish transparency in the research study and data they present.

Readers of observation research benefit from understanding how the researcher views the context they observe, the attributes of the phenomenon they see, and the thought process they adopt to describe the findings in their study. This requires providing the audience with a clear definition of the phenomenon they want to describe as well as a detailed accounting of what the researcher assumes about the phenomenon.

Theoretical development

Typically, data analysis of qualitative observation is based on inductive reasoning aimed at developing theories for completely unknown or largely unknown phenomena. This is different from quantitative observation or experimental research that seeks to confirm existing theory and whose methods seek to identify trends or provide the right or wrong answer to a research inquiry.

Theoretical development places equal importance to both qualitative research and quantitative research. However, the theory generated from qualitative observation can be strengthened through quantitative or experimental research by conducting further qualitative observation in another context to mitigate the subjective nature or any individual study.

Turn codes into insights with ATLAS.ti

Download a free trial of our data analysis interface today to make the most of your qualitative research.

Home » Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Qualitative Research – Methods, Analysis Types and Guide

Table of Contents

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on exploring and understanding people’s beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. It seeks to answer research questions through the examination of subjective data, such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and textual analysis.

Qualitative research aims to uncover the meaning and significance of social phenomena, and it typically involves a more flexible and iterative approach to data collection and analysis compared to quantitative research. Qualitative research is often used in fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education.

Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative Research Methods are as follows:

One-to-One Interview

This method involves conducting an interview with a single participant to gain a detailed understanding of their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. One-to-one interviews can be conducted in-person, over the phone, or through video conferencing. The interviewer typically uses open-ended questions to encourage the participant to share their thoughts and feelings. One-to-one interviews are useful for gaining detailed insights into individual experiences.

Focus Groups

This method involves bringing together a group of people to discuss a specific topic in a structured setting. The focus group is led by a moderator who guides the discussion and encourages participants to share their thoughts and opinions. Focus groups are useful for generating ideas and insights, exploring social norms and attitudes, and understanding group dynamics.

Ethnographic Studies

This method involves immersing oneself in a culture or community to gain a deep understanding of its norms, beliefs, and practices. Ethnographic studies typically involve long-term fieldwork and observation, as well as interviews and document analysis. Ethnographic studies are useful for understanding the cultural context of social phenomena and for gaining a holistic understanding of complex social processes.

Text Analysis

This method involves analyzing written or spoken language to identify patterns and themes. Text analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative text analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Text analysis is useful for understanding media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.

This method involves an in-depth examination of a single person, group, or event to gain an understanding of complex phenomena. Case studies typically involve a combination of data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the case. Case studies are useful for exploring unique or rare cases, and for generating hypotheses for further research.

Process of Observation

This method involves systematically observing and recording behaviors and interactions in natural settings. The observer may take notes, use audio or video recordings, or use other methods to document what they see. Process of observation is useful for understanding social interactions, cultural practices, and the context in which behaviors occur.

Record Keeping

This method involves keeping detailed records of observations, interviews, and other data collected during the research process. Record keeping is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data, and for providing a basis for analysis and interpretation.

This method involves collecting data from a large sample of participants through a structured questionnaire. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, through mail, or online. Surveys are useful for collecting data on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and for identifying patterns and trends in a population.

Qualitative data analysis is a process of turning unstructured data into meaningful insights. It involves extracting and organizing information from sources like interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The goal is to understand people’s attitudes, behaviors, and motivations

Qualitative Research Analysis Methods

Qualitative Research analysis methods involve a systematic approach to interpreting and making sense of the data collected in qualitative research. Here are some common qualitative data analysis methods:

Thematic Analysis

This method involves identifying patterns or themes in the data that are relevant to the research question. The researcher reviews the data, identifies keywords or phrases, and groups them into categories or themes. Thematic analysis is useful for identifying patterns across multiple data sources and for generating new insights into the research topic.

Content Analysis

This method involves analyzing the content of written or spoken language to identify key themes or concepts. Content analysis can be quantitative or qualitative. Qualitative content analysis involves close reading and interpretation of texts to identify recurring themes, concepts, and patterns. Content analysis is useful for identifying patterns in media messages, public discourse, and cultural trends.

Discourse Analysis

This method involves analyzing language to understand how it constructs meaning and shapes social interactions. Discourse analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is useful for understanding how language shapes social interactions, cultural norms, and power relationships.

Grounded Theory Analysis

This method involves developing a theory or explanation based on the data collected. Grounded theory analysis starts with the data and uses an iterative process of coding and analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data. The theory or explanation that emerges is grounded in the data, rather than preconceived hypotheses. Grounded theory analysis is useful for understanding complex social phenomena and for generating new theoretical insights.

Narrative Analysis

This method involves analyzing the stories or narratives that participants share to gain insights into their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. Narrative analysis can involve a variety of methods, such as structural analysis, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis. Narrative analysis is useful for understanding how individuals construct their identities, make sense of their experiences, and communicate their values and beliefs.

Phenomenological Analysis

This method involves analyzing how individuals make sense of their experiences and the meanings they attach to them. Phenomenological analysis typically involves in-depth interviews with participants to explore their experiences in detail. Phenomenological analysis is useful for understanding subjective experiences and for developing a rich understanding of human consciousness.

Comparative Analysis

This method involves comparing and contrasting data across different cases or groups to identify similarities and differences. Comparative analysis can be used to identify patterns or themes that are common across multiple cases, as well as to identify unique or distinctive features of individual cases. Comparative analysis is useful for understanding how social phenomena vary across different contexts and groups.

Applications of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has many applications across different fields and industries. Here are some examples of how qualitative research is used:

Market Research: Qualitative research is often used in market research to understand consumer attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with consumers to gather insights into their experiences and perceptions of products and services.
Health Care: Qualitative research is used in health care to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
Education: Qualitative research is used in education to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. Researchers conduct classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
Social Work : Qualitative research is used in social work to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
Anthropology : Qualitative research is used in anthropology to understand different cultures and societies. Researchers conduct ethnographic studies and observe and interview members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
Psychology : Qualitative research is used in psychology to understand human behavior and mental processes. Researchers conduct in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
Public Policy : Qualitative research is used in public policy to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. Researchers conduct focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.

How to Conduct Qualitative Research

Here are some general steps for conducting qualitative research:

Identify your research question: Qualitative research starts with a research question or set of questions that you want to explore. This question should be focused and specific, but also broad enough to allow for exploration and discovery.
Select your research design: There are different types of qualitative research designs, including ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and phenomenology. You should select a design that aligns with your research question and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
Recruit participants: Once you have your research question and design, you need to recruit participants. The number of participants you need will depend on your research design and the scope of your research. You can recruit participants through advertisements, social media, or through personal networks.
Collect data: There are different methods for collecting qualitative data, including interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. You should select the method or methods that align with your research design and that will allow you to gather the data you need to answer your research question.
Analyze data: Once you have collected your data, you need to analyze it. This involves reviewing your data, identifying patterns and themes, and developing codes to organize your data. You can use different software programs to help you analyze your data, or you can do it manually.
Interpret data: Once you have analyzed your data, you need to interpret it. This involves making sense of the patterns and themes you have identified, and developing insights and conclusions that answer your research question. You should be guided by your research question and use your data to support your conclusions.
Communicate results: Once you have interpreted your data, you need to communicate your results. This can be done through academic papers, presentations, or reports. You should be clear and concise in your communication, and use examples and quotes from your data to support your findings.

Examples of Qualitative Research

Here are some real-time examples of qualitative research:

Customer Feedback: A company may conduct qualitative research to understand the feedback and experiences of its customers. This may involve conducting focus groups or one-on-one interviews with customers to gather insights into their attitudes, behaviors, and preferences.
Healthcare : A healthcare provider may conduct qualitative research to explore patient experiences and perspectives on health and illness. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with patients and their families to gather information on their experiences with different health care providers and treatments.
Education : An educational institution may conduct qualitative research to understand student experiences and to develop effective teaching strategies. This may involve conducting classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers to gather insights into classroom dynamics and instructional practices.
Social Work: A social worker may conduct qualitative research to explore social problems and to develop interventions to address them. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals and families to understand their experiences with poverty, discrimination, and other social problems.
Anthropology : An anthropologist may conduct qualitative research to understand different cultures and societies. This may involve conducting ethnographic studies and observing and interviewing members of different cultural groups to gain insights into their beliefs, practices, and social structures.
Psychology : A psychologist may conduct qualitative research to understand human behavior and mental processes. This may involve conducting in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
Public Policy: A government agency or non-profit organization may conduct qualitative research to explore public attitudes and to inform policy decisions. This may involve conducting focus groups and one-on-one interviews with members of the public to gather insights into their perspectives on different policy issues.

Purpose of Qualitative Research

The purpose of qualitative research is to explore and understand the subjective experiences, behaviors, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research aims to provide in-depth, descriptive information that can help researchers develop insights and theories about complex social phenomena.

Qualitative research can serve multiple purposes, including:

Exploring new or emerging phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring new or emerging phenomena, such as new technologies or social trends. This type of research can help researchers develop a deeper understanding of these phenomena and identify potential areas for further study.
Understanding complex social phenomena : Qualitative research can be useful for exploring complex social phenomena, such as cultural beliefs, social norms, or political processes. This type of research can help researchers develop a more nuanced understanding of these phenomena and identify factors that may influence them.
Generating new theories or hypotheses: Qualitative research can be useful for generating new theories or hypotheses about social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data about individuals’ experiences and perspectives, researchers can develop insights that may challenge existing theories or lead to new lines of inquiry.
Providing context for quantitative data: Qualitative research can be useful for providing context for quantitative data. By gathering qualitative data alongside quantitative data, researchers can develop a more complete understanding of complex social phenomena and identify potential explanations for quantitative findings.

When to use Qualitative Research

Here are some situations where qualitative research may be appropriate:

Exploring a new area: If little is known about a particular topic, qualitative research can help to identify key issues, generate hypotheses, and develop new theories.
Understanding complex phenomena: Qualitative research can be used to investigate complex social, cultural, or organizational phenomena that are difficult to measure quantitatively.
Investigating subjective experiences: Qualitative research is particularly useful for investigating the subjective experiences of individuals or groups, such as their attitudes, beliefs, values, or emotions.
Conducting formative research: Qualitative research can be used in the early stages of a research project to develop research questions, identify potential research participants, and refine research methods.
Evaluating interventions or programs: Qualitative research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or programs by collecting data on participants’ experiences, attitudes, and behaviors.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is characterized by several key features, including:

Focus on subjective experience: Qualitative research is concerned with understanding the subjective experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of individuals or groups in a particular context. Researchers aim to explore the meanings that people attach to their experiences and to understand the social and cultural factors that shape these meanings.
Use of open-ended questions: Qualitative research relies on open-ended questions that allow participants to provide detailed, in-depth responses. Researchers seek to elicit rich, descriptive data that can provide insights into participants’ experiences and perspectives.
Sampling-based on purpose and diversity: Qualitative research often involves purposive sampling, in which participants are selected based on specific criteria related to the research question. Researchers may also seek to include participants with diverse experiences and perspectives to capture a range of viewpoints.
Data collection through multiple methods: Qualitative research typically involves the use of multiple data collection methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation. This allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data from multiple sources, which can provide a more complete picture of participants’ experiences and perspectives.
Inductive data analysis: Qualitative research relies on inductive data analysis, in which researchers develop theories and insights based on the data rather than testing pre-existing hypotheses. Researchers use coding and thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data and to develop theories and explanations based on these patterns.
Emphasis on researcher reflexivity: Qualitative research recognizes the importance of the researcher’s role in shaping the research process and outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own biases and assumptions and to be transparent about their role in the research process.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research offers several advantages over other research methods, including:

Depth and detail: Qualitative research allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data that provides a deeper understanding of complex social phenomena. Through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation, researchers can gather detailed information about participants’ experiences and perspectives that may be missed by other research methods.
Flexibility : Qualitative research is a flexible approach that allows researchers to adapt their methods to the research question and context. Researchers can adjust their research methods in real-time to gather more information or explore unexpected findings.
Contextual understanding: Qualitative research is well-suited to exploring the social and cultural context in which individuals or groups are situated. Researchers can gather information about cultural norms, social structures, and historical events that may influence participants’ experiences and perspectives.
Participant perspective : Qualitative research prioritizes the perspective of participants, allowing researchers to explore subjective experiences and understand the meanings that participants attach to their experiences.
Theory development: Qualitative research can contribute to the development of new theories and insights about complex social phenomena. By gathering rich, detailed data and using inductive data analysis, researchers can develop new theories and explanations that may challenge existing understandings.
Validity : Qualitative research can offer high validity by using multiple data collection methods, purposive and diverse sampling, and researcher reflexivity. This can help ensure that findings are credible and trustworthy.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research also has some limitations, including:

Subjectivity : Qualitative research relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers, which can introduce bias into the research process. The researcher’s perspective, beliefs, and experiences can influence the way data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
Limited generalizability: Qualitative research typically involves small, purposive samples that may not be representative of larger populations. This limits the generalizability of findings to other contexts or populations.
Time-consuming: Qualitative research can be a time-consuming process, requiring significant resources for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Resource-intensive: Qualitative research may require more resources than other research methods, including specialized training for researchers, specialized software for data analysis, and transcription services.
Limited reliability: Qualitative research may be less reliable than quantitative research, as it relies on the subjective interpretation of researchers. This can make it difficult to replicate findings or compare results across different studies.
Ethics and confidentiality: Qualitative research involves collecting sensitive information from participants, which raises ethical concerns about confidentiality and informed consent. Researchers must take care to protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants and obtain informed consent.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Applied Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Ethnographic Research -Types, Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Qualitative Research Methods

Triangulation in Research – Types, Methods and...

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Request consultation

Do you need support in running a pricing or product study? We can help you with agile consumer research and conjoint analysis.

Looking for an online survey platform?

Conjointly offers a great survey tool with multiple question types, randomisation blocks, and multilingual support. The Basic tier is always free.

Research Methods Knowledge Base

Navigating the Knowledge Base
Foundations
Construct Validity
Reliability
Levels of Measurement
Survey Research
Scaling in Measurement
The Qualitative Debate
Qualitative Data
Qualitative Approaches

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative Validity
Unobtrusive Measures
Research Design
Table of Contents

Fully-functional online survey tool with various question types, logic, randomisation, and reporting for unlimited number of surveys.

Completely free for academics and students .

There are a wide variety of methods that are common in qualitative measurement. In fact, the methods are largely limited by the imagination of the researcher. Here I discuss a few of the more common methods.

Participant Observation

One of the most common methods for qualitative data collection, participant observation is also one of the most demanding. It requires that the researcher become a participant in the culture or context being observed. The literature on participant observation discusses how to enter the context, the role of the researcher as a participant, the collection and storage of field notes, and the analysis of field data. Participant observation often requires months or years of intensive work because the researcher needs to become accepted as a natural part of the culture in order to assure that the observations are of the natural phenomenon.

Direct Observation

Direct observation is distinguished from participant observation in a number of ways. First, a direct observer doesn’t typically try to become a participant in the context. However, the direct observer does strive to be as unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias the observations. Second, direct observation suggests a more detached perspective. The researcher is watching rather than taking part. Consequently, technology can be a useful part of direct observation. For instance, one can videotape the phenomenon or observe from behind one-way mirrors. Third, direct observation tends to be more focused than participant observation. The researcher is observing certain sampled situations or people rather than trying to become immersed in the entire context. Finally, direct observation tends not to take as long as participant observation. For instance, one might observe child-mother interactions under specific circumstances in a laboratory setting from behind a one-way mirror, looking especially for the nonverbal cues being used.

Unstructured Interviewing

Unstructured interviewing involves direct interaction between the researcher and a respondent or group. It differs from traditional structured interviewing in several important ways. First, although the researcher may have some initial guiding questions or core concepts to ask about, there is no formal structured instrument or protocol. Second, the interviewer is free to move the conversation in any direction of interest that may come up. Consequently, unstructured interviewing is particularly useful for exploring a topic broadly. However, there is a price for this lack of structure. Because each interview tends to be unique with no predetermined set of questions asked of all respondents, it is usually more difficult to analyze unstructured interview data, especially when synthesizing across respondents.

Case Studies

A case study is an intensive study of a specific individual or specific context. For instance, Freud developed case studies of several individuals as the basis for the theory of psychoanalysis and Piaget did case studies of children to study developmental phases. There is no single way to conduct a case study, and a combination of methods (e.g. unstructured interviewing, direct observation) can be used.

Cookie Consent

Conjointly uses essential cookies to make our site work. We also use additional cookies in order to understand the usage of the site, gather audience analytics, and for remarketing purposes.

For more information on Conjointly's use of cookies, please read our Cookie Policy .

Which one are you?

I am new to conjointly, i am already using conjointly.

A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationships Between Foster Care Stakeholders and Research

Open access
Published: 09 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Saralyn Ruff ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2078-5509 1 ,
Deanna Linville 2 &
Quanice Hawkins 3

137 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Research on foster care from the perspective of key stakeholders with lived and professional experience is necessary to inform programs, policy and practice. Numerous barriers exist to accessing these populations and ensuring inclusion and representation in research. This study interviewed twenty-two stakeholders with lived and/or professional experience in foster care to gain their recommendations on how to understand and conduct research on foster care and specifically and how to (a) increase stakeholders’ participation in research and (b) capture a broader representation of those impacted. Findings offer observations of who does and does not participate in research and how this may affect public perception, as well as direct recommendations for future research.

What are the challenges when recruiting to a trial in children’s social care? A qualitative evaluation of a trial of foster carer training

Resource workers’ relationships with foster parents.

Family Reunification Decision-Making in Dutch Family Foster Care: A Dual Perspective Approach

Explore related subjects.

Artificial Intelligence
Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

At any given time in the United States, there are approximately 500,000 youths in the foster care system (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), 2022 ). This number is a snapshot of substantiated child welfare cases open at any one point in time and is not reflective of the number of individuals who have been involved in foster care across their childhood. Since the number of individuals who are current or former foster youth in the United States is unknown, it is difficult to capture representative research. Consequently, foster youth are noted as “one of the hardest populations to study” (Jackson et al., 2012 , p. 1212). For the present study, we recruited and interviewed twenty-two stakeholders who had lived and/or professional experiences with and in foster care to gain recommendations on how to understand and conduct research on foster care. The current study had two primary objectives: (a) to learn how to increase stakeholders’ participation in research, in order to (b) capture a more inclusive representation of those impacted personally and/or professionally by foster care.

Research on Foster Care

Conducting research on stakeholders’ experiences in child welfare can be challenging, requiring compromise alongside creative and innovative solutions (Jackson et al., 2012 ). Even considering who should participate and represent the experience of foster youth involves ethical and legal considerations. Foster youth “have often been excluded from participating in research because they are viewed as vulnerable children who lack agency and also due to an adult-centric perspective of protection” (Garcia-Quiroga & Salvo Agoglia, 2020 , p. 1). By design, the identities of children and youth involved in the foster care system are confidential and protected. If able to be accessed, it is unknown who should and could consent to the minors’ research participation and what information is developmentally appropriate to access or ask (Berrick et al., 2000 ; Greiner et al., 2018 ).

Among former foster youth, unique sets of challenges exist that hinder participation in research. While one may be of legal age to consent for one’s own self, former foster youth may no longer have ties to the foster care system, either because of limited resources to support former foster youth and/or because they may wish to distance themselves from foster care affiliation altogether (Steenbakkers et al., 2016 ). Even if interested in participation, there are limited pathways to identify and access former foster youth. These protections are critical, but create a tension when working to conduct inclusive and representative research.

A common trend in child welfare research is the reliance on third parties to represent perspectives in child welfare, without firsthand and/or lived experience. These key stakeholders may be limited as to the accuracy of what they disclose, and/or due to existing and necessary legal, ethical, and professional regulations on confidentiality (Gilbertson & Barber, 2002 ; Jackson et al., 2012 ). Researchers may alternatively seek access to extant reports and legal documentation for secondary data analysis. However, these data may not have been intended or designed for research and may not align well with established research questions (Greiner et al., 2020 ). While researchers continue to utilize these accessible alternatives, limitations remain.

The transient nature of foster care leads to continued methodological challenges in research and, in particular, with participant retention. One example involves stakeholders’ participation in longitudinal studies and both the high attrition rates in these studies and/or the reliance on cross-sectional research (Jackson et al., 2012 ). Following a sample of foster children, parents, or any other stakeholder status may prove difficult with staff turnover, foster family turnover, and both exits and entries into care (Leake et al., 2017 ). For example, longitudinal research utilizing a child welfare staff perspective may become nearly impossible when considering the high rate of staff turnover annually, attributed to high demand on their personal and professional resources (DePanfilis & Zlotnik, 2008 ; Gopalan et al., 2019 ). It would be difficult to not only access a behavioral health workforce that has turnover rates estimated between 30% annually and 100% within a four-year period, but one that while working in child welfare is under-resourced in time and support (Beidas et al., 2016 ; Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 2014 ).

Initial and/or continued research participation may also be affected by stakeholders’ perceptions of the merits of and motivation for the research. There may be mistrust that permeates disclosures of experience in foster care, particularly when such disclosures are often associated with system-level decision making. This may influence potential participants’ perceptions of research, making them wonder whether or not to participate, how much to participate, and/or whether or not to maintain participation. Gilbertson and Barber ( 2002 ) found that in research studies with stakeholders, non-response rates ranged from 72.5 to 82% across questions, possibly reflecting participants’ discomfort in answering certain questions and necessitating further clarification on appropriate scope and approach of inquiries.

As seen in the limited literature that is available on research with stakeholders in child welfare, the challenges to participation exist on many levels and may mirror the barriers that many stakeholders in child welfare routinely navigate already. There is a need for “flexible and responsive methodology” informed by stakeholders’ experiences and recommendations to guide research-informed practice and policy (Jackson et al., 2012 , p. 1212). We focused this study on learning more about how twenty-two key stakeholders in foster care perceive and experience research and what their recommendations might be to improve representation and the integrity of research.

Study Context

This study is part of the first phase of a larger evaluation of services offered through A Home Within, a national nonprofit offering pro bono mental health services to current and former foster youth. Specifically, before conducting a randomized-controlled trial (RCT), we used community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) methods to conduct a needs assessment with key stakeholders in foster care to inform the methods and design of the RCT. CBPAR methodologies prioritize partnerships with the communities that are the focus of the research as co-investigators to ensure the relevance of research findings for those communities involved (Israel et al., 2005 ). CBPAR methods vary widely, but aim to ensure equitable decision making (Israel et al., 2005 ). We describe various CBPAR methods utilized in this study, below.

For this needs assessment, we worked with our community partner and identified qualitative methodologies as most appropriate for the research questions at hand. These included interviews and focus groups with stakeholders using semi-structured guides. We analyzed data from the twenty-two qualitative interviews as the follow-up focus groups did not collect data on the relevant research questions. While all qualitative methodologies have a similar goal of understanding a phenomenon from those that are experiencing it (Vaismoradi et al., 2013 ), we felt that using generic thematic analysis methods allowed us to provide a rich and detailed, yet complex, account of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). As is expected for any research involving human participants, but particularly important when using CBPAR methodology, we sought and obtained institutional review board approval for the study protocol. Participants were informed about limits and risks to their confidentiality prior to the provision of their consent to participate.

Research Team

The research team consisted of two principal investigators, a project coordinator, five research assistants, and a research Community Advisory Board (CAB). There are three authors for this paper, two of whom were principal investigators and one who served on the CAB. The first author served as a co-principal investigator with sixteen years of clinical experience and eleven years of research experience in the child welfare system. The second author is also a co-principal investigator and has twenty years of experience conducting qualitative and mixed methods studies as well as twenty-five years of experience as a mental health professional and educator. Both the first and second authors volunteered with A Home Within at various points in their careers. They were able to maintain a boundary between A Home Within programming and the research by conducting the study through their affiliated educational institutions and taking the appropriate steps to mitigate potential research bias, including maintaining participant confidentiality. The third author served on the CAB and has worked as an advocate for foster youth. Specifically, she was a member of California Youth Connection, which impacted California state policy including Assembly Bill 5. She has also served as a consultant for the Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Independent living for former foster youth as well as an advocate through the Casey Family Programs’ Bay Area office.

Utilizing the CBPAR research framework, the research CAB was conceptualized and developed during phase one of the needs assessment. Specifically, we identified potential CAB members who have lived personal and/or professional experiences in foster care, informed by initial interview findings. The composition of the CAB included five former foster youths living in California, Oregon, or Texas, all of whom have both personal and professional experiences with foster youth. Three CAB members were current or previous recipients of therapy services through A Home Within. Another member was a licensed mental health professional and a volunteer clinician for A Home Within. The CAB met monthly for approximately 90 min over a period of two years with the purpose of providing feedback and helping to shape research methods, interpreting study findings, and providing recommendations for implications to both the larger field and A Home Within services more specifically.

The co-principal investigators used community mapping to identify key stakeholder groups in child welfare for participation in the study. Community mapping is an inquiry-based research method that situates learning within the context of the community in order to uncover the depth and diversity of community needs, resources, and assets (Ordoñez-Jasis & Myck-Wayne, 2012 ). We considered A Home Within staff not only as research partners but also as part of the community. We collaborated with A Home Within and CAB, gaining recruitment recommendations for both key stakeholder groups and individuals to invite for participation. All recruitment efforts occurred through email, paired with assurance that participation would be kept confidential and would not affect standing with A Home Within.

Participants

Twenty-two stakeholders in the foster care community participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews used for analysis in this study (see Table 1 for participant demographic information.) Participants lived across the United States with the majority (68%) residing on the West Coast. Over half (54.5%) of the participants identified as White; eight (36.3%) identified as persons of color, and two (9.1%) did not respond to the question about racial/ethnic identity.

Thirteen (59%) key stakeholder participants were affiliated with A Home Within. Specifically, they served either as a volunteer therapist, consultation group leader, clinical director, paid leadership role, and/or client. Of those ( n = 9, 41%) not affiliated with A Home Within, five were mental health therapists working with current and former foster youth; four were social workers and case managers working in child welfare and/or juvenile justice. Of the eight former foster youth (36%) who participated in the study, four (18%) were current A Home Within clients. Three participants (14%) were foster parents, one (5%) was the biological parent of foster children, and two participants (9%) worked in juvenile justice.

Data Collection

The co-principal investigators conducted Zoom interviews with key stakeholders that ranged from 90 to 180 min in length. Several questions from the semi-structured interview guide focused on how to best include current and former foster youth in research. Interview questions pertaining to the current study were asked at the beginning and end of each interview to allow for an iterative process between data collection and analysis. The questions included the following:

How did you hear about this project and why did you decide to participate?

What are your perceptions of research on foster care?

Do you have any thoughts or recommendations about how to get more people to participate in research with the foster care system, particularly those that are in care to prioritize the voices of the people that were trying to serve?

Who else should we talk to in order to understand the experiences of current and former foster youth?

Do you have any recommendations related to the research?

Often, we asked follow-up questions that differed based on the participants’ context and experiences. At several points, we checked in with participants to ask about the general process of the study in progress and gained insights that are included in our findings. We did not have preconceived notions about the findings and allowed key stakeholders’ voices to characterize the data. As such, the findings and ordering of themes are presented in the way that they flowed from the conversations with interview participants.

Participants consented and provided demographic data prior to the interview via a Qualtrics survey. Throughout the interview data collection process, the co-principal investigators kept field notes and debriefed after every interview. Consistent with content analysis qualitative methods, interviews were recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai. Following, a trained research assistant reviewed each video recording and cleaned the transcripts to ensure accuracy.

Data Analysis

Our primary objective of this qualitative inquiry was to provide a participant-informed description and meaning-making of how to engage and include foster youth in research. We used thematic analysis as an independent qualitative descriptive approach, which fit with our goal of gathering descriptions from the participants themselves and not from the research team’s interpretations of them (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ; Sandelowski, 2010 ). This approach does have a guiding philosophy, even though it does not follow an explicit set of theoretical assumptions (Caelli et al., 2003 ).

For the first step of the analysis and in order to familiarize ourselves with the data, the first and second authors independently read through all the qualitative answers to get an overall sense of the data before engaging in the initial coding process. Then, during the second review of the data, the authors generated initial codes with each person writing down initial concepts, phrases, or words that were important to create the coding scheme (Clarke & Braun, 2013 ). The team then searched for themes by clustering codes into themes and subthemes (Vaismoradi et al., 2013 ). The final coding scheme consisted of four overarching themes and fourteen subthemes.

We took several steps to ensure the trustworthiness and dependability of our findings. Throughout the process, the team used peer debriefing and reaching intercoder agreement in order to bolster the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings (Curtin & Fossey, 2007 ; Saldaña, 2015 ). The authors conducted member checking, defined as taking back ideas from the research to the participants for their confirmation and clarification (Birt et al., 2016 ; Charmaz, 2006 ). Specifically, we sent findings out to nine participants, asking them to review the findings and respond to the following two questions:

Do you see your experience captured in the findings?

Is there anything you would add or change?

We gained feedback from six of the nine participants, and all members indicated that the interpretation of the data and the findings captured their perspectives. Four offered elaboration related to implications of the findings, reflected in the Discussion of this paper. Two participants shared an interest in member checking but had time conflicts and requested involvement at a different time.

Lastly, the research team elicited and received feedback from the research CAB on the study findings and its implications. A draft of the findings was sent to the CAB via email in preparation for a two-hour discussion. In the email and in the meeting, the CAB was asked:

Understanding that the findings needed to reflect the participants’ experiences, do they resonate with experiences?

Based on your professional and personal experiences, what are some possible practice, research, policy, and/or service implications of the findings?

The CAB provided us with valuable feedback in writing and orally, included in our Discussion.

Interviews with twenty-two participants supported an increased understanding of reasons stakeholders may or may not participate in research and what could possibly be done to support representative and inclusive research. Specifically, four major themes emerged across the conversations with key stakeholders including (a) general barriers to participation in research; (b) who participates in research and who does not; (c) reasons for research participation; and (d) recommendations for future research in child welfare. Within each major theme, there were two to six subthemes, described and illustrated with participant quotes below.

General Barriers Towards Participation

Not surprisingly, the key stakeholders interviewed for this study reflected on the many barriers that they believed impacted involvement in child welfare research. These barriers clustered into two larger subthemes: (a) skepticism about the motivations of research and (b) concerns about meeting the expectations of the researchers. Across this theme, participants expressed that they themselves, or other stakeholders, held a general mistrust in telling one’s story for the purpose of research. Participants frequently mentioned concerns about who research ultimately serves and how their individual stories might be used.

Skepticism About the Research Motivations

Participants held curiosity, if not skepticism, about how research questions and priorities were decided and how personal stories may then be filtered, analyzed, and shared in research. For some participants, this mistrust felt parallel, or at least related, to the experiences of not having a choice within the foster care system. One participant captured this concern, saying:

Yeah, being a kid is hard. People are telling you what to do all the time. And being a foster kid is even harder. It’s kind of amazing that people don’t stop to ask what you want. And so, research that you have to do and be told what you have to do, I don’t think it goes over very well because it’s just more of the same. (A Home Within staff)

Another former foster youth expressed exhaustion with this sameness and a desire for boundaries around who and when to share their story. They mentioned “I don’t want to always talk about me. And I think in general, foster kids don’t want that. We don’t want everything to be on us.” The last part of this quote captured a sentiment shared by others with lived experience that foster youth should not have to carry the primary responsibility for change. Specifically, participants expressed concern about the emotional and psychological work required in discussing child welfare and their conflict in wondering who this ultimately benefited—the system/s, foster youth, and/or researchers.

While discussing a mistrust of research, several participants wondered what would be done with the research findings and what lens would be used to frame their story. Some shared that these intentions are often unclear in research studies with unclear study aims. One Home Within clinical consultant highlighted their distrust, not knowing what is done with the information collected in research, sharing:

Mostly where it comes from is distrust of like, “Why? What are you going to do with this? Who are you? Why would you change anything? Like how does this change anything for me?” And it’s not as selfish as it sounds. It’s more like protecting their story because it takes a lot to walk in the world with the story they have.

Participants shared that it may be that underlying concerns and mistrust of research were, in part, related to past negative ramifications of having shared information with professionals. As one parent of a foster youth shared:

If it’s with somebody that will actually listen and not point the finger and not blame. … People want to share their stories. They’re just afraid. People get looked at as crazy. No, that didn’t happen, that doesn’t happen, there are laws to protect you. There are laws to protect your child and not everybody gets the benefits – those benefits. Some people are … some agencies are opportunists.

Simply put by one A Home Within former staff member, “you have a population of folks who tend to be exploited in various ways and are rightfully wary, and who are also probably just exhausted, right?” Across these findings, research participation was described to feel like a risk, requiring caution and some sense of safety.

Meeting Expectations of the Researchers

A second subtheme that emerged as a possible barrier to research participation was a concern about meeting the expectations of the researcher. The lack of clarity about research language, intention, and overall goals left some participants feeling a bit unclear about what researchers wanted and hesitancy about matching these expectations. One clinician reflected on the many conversations that they had with former foster youth when referring them to research, and the common question they asked was whether or not they would “do a good job.” This participant elaborated that this concern is often shared by families, case managers, and other stakeholders, who hold a sense of responsibility about how the data they provide might impact their communities.

Concern about researcher expectations was also evident during many of the interviews with participants included in this study. Throughout the interview transcripts, participants inquired if they were answering questions how we wanted them to or meeting the goals of our study. This was evident in the interview process when clients would directly ask the researchers for this study, “Did that answer your question?” As will be discussed later, this finding was also reflected as a research recommendation under the subtheme “ Offer Feedback .” There, participants recommended providing more structure and feedback to stakeholders to know whether the information they shared was in line with the research goals and, even more, was heard and held as an impactful, individual experience.

Differentiating Between Who Does and Does Not Participate

A second major theme was evident across the findings related to participants’ awareness of which key stakeholders in foster care participate and which do not. This theme was built on the previous theme that reflected stakeholders’ mistrust in research and led to conversations on how research results and findings are often not representative of the full breadth of lived and professional experiences. For example, when asked about participation in research, one clinician and A Home Within Clinical Director immediately responded, “But you won’t get the people who are the most disengaged, right? We’ll always have trouble with that.” Later, this same participant continued, reflecting on researchers’ reliance on specific individuals who may be more likely to participate that “the mentoring group that’s here, that works with young adults here, there’s a subset that really did want to be activists. And they were looking at ways to have an impact on the system, to change the system.” Another example of this theme was offered by a social worker who said, “There are pockets of folks we can always rely on, but that’s only 5–10 people, that’s not necessarily a scale of what we’re working with.”

Within this broader theme of who is included in research and who is not, two subthemes emerged: access to participants and timing of request for participation. These subthemes reflected possible assumptions about research procedures that influenced whose voices are heard and led to recommendations for increasing research access to and inclusion of a broader range of stakeholders.

Access to Participants

When asked the question whether participants had any thoughts or recommendations about how to get more people to participate in research, particularly those with lived and/or professional experience, the majority shared an immediate offer to help. Specifically, even though the intention of this question was not to ask for names for the study at hand, participants tended to brainstorm organizations and nonprofits and provide names with a willingness to help recruit. One former foster youth and social worker answered:

Well, you know [name of nonprofit] might be a nice opportunity because it’s a contained community. And I think the onsite staff could certainly facilitate that. I mean, of course you’re going to get one very particular view because with these kids, youth. … Oh, and there is a program called ___, and I think that is a national program, and those are former foster youth who become involved because they’re interested in the bigger picture.

Participants also showed an inclination to rely on nonprofits and agencies as referral sources for research and, again, to understand that such recruitment methods may only offer access to a fraction of those with lived experience in foster care. Some participants emphasized the importance of utilizing nonprofits as a preferred network for research recruitment due to their extensive knowledge and understanding of child welfare. One participant commented:

Organizations that work with young people very frequently, talking to line staff and folks that are supporting young people all the time, I think that those are people that are really important to talk to, because they just have a finger on the pulse of what’s happening in the world and how people are feeling about it. (Former Foster Youth and A Home Within client)

Several other individuals voiced concerns or challenges in the use of third parties to create connections with stakeholders. One A Home Within staff member and clinician said:

Some of these other nonprofit organizations. … Sometimes that works and sometimes it’s not so easy because people become very proprietary. Why are you taking my kids to do your research? What do I get out of it? Or, we don’t use mental health; we do something else. People get very proprietary.”

A former foster parent and foster youth advocate working at a college expanded on hesitations in connecting stakeholders and researchers, based on their first-hand experience:

I always feel a little bit protective of students when there’s an opportunity to tell your story, because I think it’s super important to get people’s voices out there. In order to raise support and funding, people want to hear people’s stories. It can also be re-traumatizing or you can feel like your traumas are being used. When we have an opportunity, where we need some student voices, I like to just put it out there widely, and with no pressure. Some students will be really, really interested in that and feel really empowered by it. But it’s definitely not all students who feel that way. I don’t want to overuse it and ask people over and over again.

Later, this same participant explained how they tend to make decisions about when to connect researchers with potential foster youth participants:

I’m always forming partnerships for people to refer to us. Right? So, for me to refer students to other programs and for them to refer to us. It’s a relationship that takes time to build. Once I see that students connect with it, and report back that it’s going well, and then another student does and another student does, and we kind of build that proof, then there’s this confidence built. If there’s someone that I don’t know, and there’s a random email, I’m not going to immediately send it on to students. Maybe we’ll meet and see where the intersections are. Then, maybe there’s a particular student who I think might be a good opportunity for them to try. They’ll try and it’ll go well, or not.

This general sense of protection of certain stakeholders was evident when talking with professionals in child welfare, yet of note, many stakeholders with lived experience shared concerns about professionals making these decisions and “gatekeeping” opportunities.

Timing of Participation

A second subtheme evident across the interviews about who participates in research and who does not, related to the timing of participation. This subtheme seemed to be particularly focused on current and former foster youth as stakeholders. Additionally, participants noted that not only does timing influence who participates, but it may also influence the data a researcher may receive from a current versus a former foster youth. To explain, one former foster youth and A Home Within client stated:

I think that’s a recommendation that I make too, folks like me, who are 34, [are] probably helpful to talk to you because I’m a bit removed from my own personal experience at this point in time [as they would be]. But I think that it’s really important to also talk to young people who are in it. In the same way, not folks who are currently being traumatized by the system … that’s not necessarily what I’m saying. But folks who are 19 or 20 [ages] struggling trying to figure it out. I think that they would have a very different perspective than somebody like me.

Other participants emphasized that a trauma lens should inform the timing of recruitment, so that researchers have an awareness that, many times, foster youth are not in a space to answer questions related to their experiences until they have a sense of safety, and that this sense of safety may come with time and distance from foster care.

Now I have my support team, I have my confidence, you know, I have my voice established. I’m able to speak up. And that’s a big part of why I’m at [child welfare nonprofit], is being able to advocate because I wasn’t able to advocate for myself at that age, sitting at a table with all these grown-ups, and they have all these degrees, and they know what they’re talking about. And sometimes it could still be intimidating. Now, because I don’t have a college degree, I go off of my personal experience. But that’s what makes me that much better. Because I do have that lived experience. And I do have that voice and I do know what works and what doesn’t. So, I think my voice is being heard now. (Former Foster Youth and A Home Within Client)

Reasons Key Stakeholders May Participate

In learning why each participant agreed to an interview for this study, discussions broadened to examine why stakeholders may participate in research on child welfare. There were two subthemes that identified contribution and sharing success as possible reasons for research participation. Of note, the data supporting this theme, and quotes offered below, were either from former foster youth about their own participation, or about foster youth, and did not necessarily extend to discussions regarding the participation of other key stakeholders.

There were a few non-foster youth interviewees that participated in this study who conveyed the general idea that foster youth stakeholders would want to participate in research, assuming that the invitation, timing and conditions were correct. One clinician shared that “my sense has been that foster kids are really happy to be asked what’s on their mind. So, I think it’s getting to them. I would see that as a roadblock rather than giving them the opportunity to talk.”

This quote highlights the importance of having access to recruitment and referral sources and builds on the previous subtheme of “ Timing of the Ask .” Specifically, the data suggested that it was more in the way one would be approached than whether they had an interest in participation.

To Contribute

When expanding on assumed interest in research, participants often reflected on the belief that many stakeholders held a strong desire to contribute. This finding was evident across stakeholder status, but particularly emphasized among current and former foster youth, and is exemplified in the quotes below.

I think that one of the reasons why I wanted to participate was just because I’m just the kind of person who has always tried to give back and use my experience to help inform better policy practice, etc. Anything that I can do to help the experiences of other people going through it, is something that I’ll always say yes to. (Former Foster Youth and A Home Within client) I’m pretty open about my experience in foster care and I know a lot of people aren’t so like, I like to step up for those who aren’t comfortable sharing things like what happened to them and stuff like that. (Former Foster Youth) I was super eager to jump in and tell you what I’m struggling with at my age now and with my mental health and the services that I’m having. So, I was really eager to be able to talk about now being a former foster youth, and how crazy it is, the way the systems are in place, and sometimes how difficult it can be not having the support and not having someone to advocate for you. I’ve really been thriving off of this, sharing my experience and talking about what I’ve gone through, how it’s helped me and what I’m still going through today… like every day is a struggle. And I call it a beautiful struggle, because we choose to make it ugly, or we choose to make it beautiful. So, I’m actually starting to involve myself in doing a lot more community speaking … doing a lot more public speaking, things like that sharing my experience, and it’s really something that since I did it with you guys [at a community event] that I’ve been wanting to do more and it’s really exciting to me to be able to talk. (Former Foster Youth)

As seen through these quotes, contribution often overlapped with advocacy and a desire to ensure others did not feel alone in their experience. One former foster youth participant shared:

It’s really important for people like you to know, so that you know that there are people out here that have gone through these things and like what things you guys can do to stop certain things from happening, maybe giving more support, you know?

To Share Success

Several participants directly discussed participation as a means to share their successes and strengths. One former foster youth and A Home Within client shared pride in telling their story:

It’s beyond being open to sharing it. I want to wear it like a crown. I’m not kidding. Yeah. I’m a badass. … Like, no matter what it’s like, I’ve survived multiple decades of domestic violence, motherfucker. What do you think, you know? You think you know, anything? Try to walk in my shoes for five minutes? You wouldn’t make it half a block?

Other participants explained that sharing their successes were not only for others’ benefit, but also for their own selves in supporting personal accountability and growth. One former foster youth explained:

I feel like I am a huge success … not only for foster care, but for family, who are really well known here and not in a positive way. I’m the only one out of 10 that graduated in high school, that’s been to college, that has my own home, that has custody of my child. Child welfare has been involved with my brothers and sisters in a really negative way. And it’s like, I know, they see my name. So, it’s really nice to be that success, and be able to empower it, you know?

This same participant then continued, “I can’t be telling people that I am this and doing this and doing that when really, I’m not a good member of the community or something like that.” This sentiment was also reflected in other interviews, suggesting that sharing success was sometimes intertwined with maintaining success. The following additional quotes further supports this point:

The reason why I wanted to do it was because I think it’s a good experience for me, and a stepping stone for me to talk about these things that affect me. It’s still a big thing for me. I still have a problem with trusting people. Just maintaining relationships are a really big thing for me. I push people away. You know I have a problem with having them there and before they can do something to me, I push them [away]. So, it’s a really big thing for me to do this and express myself and tell my story. I don’t know if that makes sense. (Former Foster Youth) I’m actually looking into doing a lot of motivational speaking. So, something that has discouraged me, is not having that degree. So, a lot of people think that because I don’t have a degree in motivational speaking or sharing my story, I didn’t know how much of an impact it would be, until I did it that first time. And I didn’t know how many people I could reach until I was pushed to do it that first time. I kind of feel like letting people know that you don’t have to have a degree to share your story. It’s more of what you went through and what you’ve experienced. ... I can tell you now when I first started here [foster youth advocacy organization], I could not do public speaking. I would shake, I’d be sick, I’d throw up…it’s bad. So practice, having a support team, having somebody that’s told me, I am the only one that knows what happened in my life. I’m the only one that knows what I’m going to say. You guys don’t even know when I mess up or when I skip a line, because I am a professional on my life and my experience and being that confident and having that support is what has caused me to thrive and be more open to doing these things. Did that answer your question? (Former Foster Youth)

These quotes build on the importance of sharing success and the potential positive influence it can have on others and self.

Recommendations for Research on Foster Care

Many of the conversations with participants led to brainstorming and sometimes direct recommendations on how to support future research on child welfare. These conversations focused on involving current and former foster youth, more so than foster parents, case managers, or others with lived and/or professional experience, in research as stakeholders. The recommendations were generously offered, organized into six subthemes.

Incentivizing Participation

Consistent across the interviews, participants suggested that the bare minimum for supporting stakeholders’ participation in research included offering compensation, not only for their time but for the psychological work required to share personal information. As one clinician and A Home Within staff member said, “I think the gift card helps.” Or, as a former foster youth highlighted, “I mean I think incentivizing it is always a good thing. … I don’t know to what scale. I always signed up for stuff where I was like, oh, I get pizza or oh you’re gonna pay me or like those kinds of things.” It was not always recommended that these incentives only be financial, but as one parent of a foster youth suggested:

Have like a pamphlet full of resources full of you know advocates, and one of the key points here is to believe what’s happening because if you dismiss what’s occurring to each family, then people just go into the little cocoon and they don’t want to talk anymore.

This participant continued to discuss how difficult it can be to tell one’s story, and how resources or referrals felt like one way, of many, for researchers to show care about what they had heard and about them. Several participants recommended that researchers offer participants a choice of incentive, including them in the decision-making process; this recommendation will be further exemplified in the recommendation subcategories “ Join as Co-Creators of Research .”

Build Relationships

The data clearly indicated that individuals were more likely to participate in research, and to have a positive experience, thereby increasing future participation, in the context of a relationship with researchers. The acknowledgement of the tendency to lack a relationship was reflected here:

Research when I have seen it done on foster youth, it is extractive, right? You know, you do not know the researchers from anybody and they show up, and they can be as nice as they damn well please, but you do not have any connection to them. (Social Worker)

Many suggested that nonprofits and agencies could help facilitate relationships, specifically with stakeholders with lived experience. Specifically, some participants emphasized the importance of building relationships with third parties to earn trust. One clinician offered the following:

I tried to in big and small ways create a sense that we’re all in this together. We’re all doing different stuff. We’re coming at it in different ways, but, you know there’s a huge need. You’re not going to meet all the needs through your organization. I’m not going to meet all of those through mine. But what can we do together? And this research will help you, will help your kids, the kids you’re serving. Maybe not help you and your organization directly, but it should help the kids you want to help.

Several participants offered direct suggestions for navigating the process, building relationships with third party recruitment sources. One clinician and A Home Within Clinical Consultant shared:

But I think the question of how you get their trust. Maybe there needs to be a pre-interview meeting, right, to get them interested and see what they think and to answer some questions. Or, I don’t know, I think it’s more about how the interviewer builds trust with people who don’t trust and who feel like they’ve been misunderstood or their words have been taken away … or worry that if they say something it’d come back to haunt them.

Offer Feedback

As noted previously, the data showed some mistrust of research, combined with wants and desires to contribute and share successes. These conversations often segued to the recommendation for researchers to offer feedback to participants in real time during the process. Participants understood the need to not bias research and still offered this recommendation as a way to convey that the researchers heard the participants’ stories and valued their willingness to share. For example, one college support professional for foster youth who also had been a foster parent offered:

I think that there’s this thing with the foster care experience, also where you have to support individuals’ caseworkers, or whatever that comes into your life, and maybe a week later, they’ve moved on, and there’s someone else. You just kind of never know. There are all these moving parts and so to share your voice, but have it just be this passing thing that you’re never connected with the results [research] ... that can be hard. I guess, from that perspective, trying to incorporate it into agencies and people who are serving foster youth who have more of a long-term relationship model, so that it can be part of that longer term relationship rather than this like random opportunity where I share all my stuff, and then, where does it go? Or, what happens to it? Does that make sense?

For other participants, the request for feedback was evident within the interview process for the current study. For example, the ending of the previous quote (“does that make sense”), as well as similar endings of previously provided quotes (e.g., “Did that answer your question?”) convey a general want for some possible confirmation. Or, when we checked in with a former foster youth participant half way through the interview and asked “how are things going,” they said:

Well, I like the way it’s gone so far because you guys throw the question and I answer it. You haven’t interrupted me. You haven’t invalidated anything I said. You haven’t given me the impression that you agree or disagree with what I’m saying, you’re just taking it all in … You’re not making me feel like I did something wrong or I’m saying something wrong. You are just taking it all in, which is kind of like … I can stay here. I can answer more questions. You’re actually interested in what I have to say whether it makes a difference or not … that’s what I’m getting.

Later, this participant concluded: “Yeah and kids want the same thing. They just want to let you know what's on their mind, even if you disagree.”

Re-engagement (or Maintained Engagement)

In addition to offering feedback in vivo during research, participants recommended circling back with participants at a later point to let them know what the researchers heard, what was shared, and what may have happened as a result of the work. It was clear that many felt that participants were asked to tell their story or parts of their story, but rarely knew what happened with their stories, how researchers interpreted them, and what the impact may have been. One participant shared:

Also making sure that you follow up with them afterwards, about anything that came up for them … if there is anything that you can do to support them, what the next steps are so they understand if they have a role moving past that interview and if you need to debrief or any of those kinds of things. (Former Foster Youth)

Participants expressed that it may increase their skepticism and reluctance to participate in research if researchers failed to maintain engagement post-data collection. Even more, some participants suggested that the experience of sharing one’s story may linger, triggering unresolved feelings, and serve as another instance wherein someone heard their story, but did not care enough to follow up. One former foster youth and foster youth advocate shared:

A lot of people would like to know what you’re using your research for. Is it to present the data to … I don’t know who funds counseling, but like whoever you’re trying to get more financial resources for counseling for foster youth who need it. If you write a grant, and even when you write a grant, as you get your money, you’re supposed to write a follow up of how you used your grant? That’s what I would think that foster youth would need as a follow-up, not just do an interview and get all this emotional labor and never follow up. I’d like to know, how has your research improved mental health services, specifically. So, I think the investment into youth is important.

Join as Co-creators of Research

Building on the importance of valued time, feedback, and relationships, the data supported a subtheme and recommendation focused on working with stakeholders as co-creators of research. This finding was evident in numerous quotes, emphasizing how critical it can be for someone who has firsthand experience to sit at the decision-making table. One A Home Within Clinical Consultant directly asked:

I mean, is there room for folks that were in the system to sit on the board in the construction of it and how are those faces present when these invitations are made? Right? Things like that I think can help. Again, it doesn’t guarantee you anything, but it just shows that this isn’t performative, you know?

Later this same participant returned to this idea, sharing:

So, when I talked earlier about how mental health is constructed, even that in of itself is like, “How do we get the folks who do the research to integrate people they’re researching” … seems very much like that gatekeeper thing, right? So, even that we struggle with that question, it puts people on the defensive, because then it’s like I have to justify why I deserve to know and be a part of people reviewing my story. That’s just a tough sell for folks. Yeah, and I don’t think anybody who has an understanding of what it’s like to not have control over their story and over their life, would willingly give up that easily? You know?

This quote captures how the question for researchers to even consider a decision of inclusion is inappropriate and off putting for many stakeholders in child welfare. Similarly, a former foster youth discussed both the importance of partnerships and the challenges they experienced with inclusion in process:

And so being a youth and being at that table, we’re kind of always told what’s best for us, what we should do, you know, what our goal should be. And it’s nice that I’m able to tell them. I’m able to share with them what works and what doesn’t work, because I’ve been there. I’ve seen what I struggled with at that age when I wasn’t able to vocalize it. (Former Foster Youth)

A former foster youth and child welfare professional shared how important the co-creation of research is at all stages of the research process, particularly when working to interpret the data and discuss the implications:

We often see policies and laws, and all of these things have been created, but it’s not like literally benefiting us, you know? They’re not looking at us as victims, who were, you know, put through a pipeline and because of the traumatic experiences that we experienced along that pipeline, how that has affected us and led us to other horrible situations … i.e, you know, prison, juvenile detention centers from school, from foster care going into placement from group homes to juvenile detention centers.

Numerous participants also underscored how critical research collaboration and co-creation is in participant recruitment. One social worker emphasized the importance of having stakeholders conduct the interviews and gather the data, to increase the likelihood of a positive experience for participants in research. Specifically, they said:

I think that is a big piece when foster parents can connect with … whoever it is trying to gather the information, for a lot of different reasons. I think it just kind of builds that rapport immediately when they know that they have some understanding of what they’re going through. I think that is a big piece to it.

Some stakeholders noted that when collaborating and co-creating research, it may be of value to offer support during the process, while individuals in this role are asked to hold both their own experiences in foster care and those of others:

It’s really hard I think to– If you haven’t dealt with your own trauma to support people in their own, and that piece I think is like one of the big lessons learned and youth engagement and youth development that I’ve kind of participated in is like you need to do a lot of pre work with people to get them up to speed on the why the how the purpose, you know, all those kinds of things that they get it and they understand the bigger picture and their role in that bigger picture. (Former Foster Youth and A Home Within Client)

Capture the Story, Not Just the Outcome

A final subtheme that emerged from the data was a request that the findings of a research study reflect a story, rather than a single outcome, or set of outcomes. The consensus was that it was important to avoid a reduction of their experience, and forgo critical context. One former foster youth emphasized the importance of not only hearing the context, but ensuring this was at the forefront of the findings:

So, the way that we share out some of this information once the research is actually completely concluded is also really important, maybe just as important as the way that the research is collected. Because if you’re not, if you’re not catering to the audience that you’re trying to reach and you’re not connecting with them, you’re not going to, you know, chances are that it’s not going to have the impact that you’re hoping to.

When considering how to capture the context in research, one participant shared:

I mean, I know that you guys know this as researchers. ... I think that a lot of times it’s very hard to use qualitative information to inform and persuade people because people love numbers and statistics and yada yada. I think that can be very hard but I think that the storytelling aspect of, of all of this, is also very important and I think that sharing perspective is also valuable … at the end of the day, to have an impact, whether that’s on policy or whatever it is. I think that there is a unique kind of value added to having young people telling the story that the research has created. I think that’s really impactful to have people who have lived experience, share that message about themselves and they can talk, instead of talking about this disassociated concept of what we took away from the survey. People can connect that back to their real life.

Later, the same participant continued:

Just be able to say that and say, you know, we learned, we evolved, we thought it through, we tested it, we looked, experimented. And here’s a better way we think of doing it. And people have to be comfortable with that kind of experimentation, rather than to assume that there’s absolute truth that will be revealed by a randomized trial. (Researcher, Social Worker)

A clinician and A Home Within Clinical Consultant offered a similar perspective, challenging the focus in research on diagnosis and pathology:

I think it starts by making it less detached. That’s the fatal flaw. And I think in research, I understand the intention behind it, but when it becomes - when you make it so clinical, when you detach it from your own experience, you can’t not look through your own experience. You can’t not see things and interpret them. But if your model comes from one that’s more normative, or at least we’ve diagnosed it as normative, how could you understand someone who does not live the same insurance, who hasn’t lived the same insurance: the habits, the ways they create security looked totally different to you. And so when you look at it, yes it looks pathological. You’re like, “Nobody I know has ever done this. And every book I’ve read is like, no this is normative.” But when you’re in a survival state, like what’s normal?

Research on foster care is complex and often requires a balance of both creativity and compromise, particularly when prioritizing the voices and perspectives of those with lived and/or professional experience (Garcia-Quiroga & Salvo Agoglia, 2020 ; Wilson & Conroy, 1999 ). Barriers exist that challenge what we know about those previously or currently in foster care, despite the consensus that this research knowledge is necessary to inform programs, policy, and practice. A clear theme across the summarized findings of this study is the need to establish relationships between stakeholders and researchers to (a) reduce barriers to participation and involvement, (b) increase inclusion and representation of stakeholder perspectives, and (c) support reciprocal learning.

Barriers to Research

A major finding of this study suggested that stakeholders may see parallels, or at least hold concerns about the similarities between their experiences in and/or with foster care and their participation in research on foster care. These concerns and hesitations among stakeholders pertained to both sharing personal content and information, as well as to the larger process of interacting with “others”—often unknown professionals—who hold perceived power in interpreting and influencing narratives about stakeholder experiences. These findings highlight the vulnerabilities that can come with disclosure, rooted in real and harmful experiences associated with foster care to both the participant and their community (Steenbakkers et al., 2016 ).

A second key finding of this study was an understanding by stakeholders that there is limited participation in research and that this impacts what is known and not known, as well as whose perspectives and experiences are represented in the literature. Participants expressed concern about an overreliance on specific partnerships in research, as well as a curiosity about whether participation may be confounded by individual affiliation or demographic identity. For example, participants noted a reliance on transition-age samples and wondered about whether retrospective experiences of past foster youth would inform current needs about experiences within a constantly changing system. Conversations centered on a critical need for increased ethnic and racial representation. Specifically, while child welfare disproportionately targets racially and ethnically minoritized individuals (Watt & Kim, 2019 ), participants consistently noted that those represented in research are more likely to identify with majority-status demographics. Across the interviews, questions arose about why this may be with conversations highlighting a compounding mistrust of research among minoritized stakeholders and the importance of anti-racist research that acknowledges and exposes the systemic and structural racism in foster care (Wilson, n.d ).

When considering participation, findings reflected an awareness that some stakeholders do not participate in research, because they may need time and space from their involvement with and/or experiences in the foster care system. One specific subtheme that emerged from the data centered on the importance of timing and when one might be asked to participate, noting that there are numerous reasons for not disclosing personal information, including not wanting to hurt those in their personal lives, self-protection from memories, and/or feeling “angry, hurt, ashamed, or otherwise uncomfortable” (Steenbakkers et al., 2016 , p. 5). Identifying and understanding these reasons require additional research to learn why these reasons can and do change over time and how they may affect research participation.

When stakeholders did share their experiences in research, findings suggested that their participation is often motivated by a desire to contribute, share success, and/or remain accountable to their success. Collectively, these motivations represent stakeholders’ interests in positive representation in the literature and the importance of balanced research that allows for opportunities to evidence both individual and collective strengths and contributions and not simply risks and challenges (Cook-Cottone & Beck, 2007 ). This mirrors other research findings (e.g., Ruff & Harrison, 2020 ; Ruff et al., 2023 ), which highlights that those with a history of foster care involvement can experience concern about the skew towards negative narratives and representations in research. Additionally, findings emphasized the importance of these strengths-based, balanced narratives coming from various stakeholder status groups and not just foster youth, to reduce the pressure youth stakeholders routinely shared of feeling isolated in holding primary advocacy roles (e.g., “We don’t want everything to be on us”).

Recommendations for Research

Participants generously shared numerous recommendations for research. Consistent across all interviews, stakeholders clearly communicated: (1) a relationship between researchers and child welfare stakeholders is imperative to reciprocal learning, and 2) building this relationship requires awareness of context and intentional inclusion. As stated by a Community Advisory Board (CAB) member, the message to prioritize across the research process is: “Let them know their voice matters.” To support relationships in research, participants highlighted the importance of inclusion at all steps of the research process and not simply data collection (Garcia-Quiroga & Salvo Agoglia, 2020 ). This perspective was clearly articulated by participants who noted that even having to justify or make a case to increase involvement was problematic, as inclusion at all stages, including the foundational moments, is the “right of rights,” recognizing stakeholders’ agency (Giorgi, 2010 ).

Recommendations for inclusion centered around the initiation and maintenance of relationships with stakeholders that support research integrity. Specifically, participants suggested inclusion in the co-creation of research questions, choice of incentive to signal respect and agency, reliance on stakeholders to collect data, co-authorships of findings, and sharing of any change or consequence to programs, policy, and practice. Participants also highlighted the value of ongoing communication during data collection that validated their experience, confirmed that their responses answered the research questions, and showed that the researchers were appropriately informed on foster care. Beyond data collection, participants noted that the experience of sharing one’s story may linger, triggering unresolved feelings for stakeholder participants, and suggested appropriate follow up. Across all interactions, participants offered recommendations that mirrored previous research (e.g., Jackson et al., 2012 ; Steenbakkers et al., 2016 ), focused on the importance of taking time to capture context and balance and resisting transactional exchanges. Participants also recommended the use of qualitative methodologies to capture necessary context and balance, and support the establishment of trust. This finding also mirrors previous research encouraging the consideration of mixed methods (e.g., Aarons et al., 2012 ) and underscores the importance of working to ensure a sense of control and agency in research participation.

When increasing inclusion in research, stakeholders recommended that researchers recognize and find ways to offer protection to participants. In addition to risks associated with sharing personal experience, participants noted ramifications associated with an over reliance on specific stakeholder groups. Specifically, our findings suggested that participants with lived experience often feel burned out by research requests and, in some situations, tokenized. Both participants and CAB members how their experiences in research changed over time and how understanding this may be of importance in both recruiting participants and in supporting participants throughout the process. Participants reflected that, at first, they tended to feel nervous and/or concerned about research involvement, wondering how others were hearing and interpreting their experiences. However, these same participants noted that eventually they developed an ability to hold psychological distance from their stories while sharing that supported regular participation. This experience inevitably changed again, when participation began to feel formulaic, detached, and as if it served an audience looking for a specific narrative. Further exploration of these experiences may serve to help understand stakeholders’ research participation as well as maybe even changes in one’s comfort sharing experiences over time. Additional investigation may also learn whether those who do not participate may (a) feel that they do not fit the standard/token criteria aligned with research interest and/or (b) be utilizing necessary boundaries around how and to whom they offer their time, resources, and stories.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study is not without limitations. As noted, participation may be confounded by participants’ affiliation with mental health treatment and/or services, by their participation in the foster care system as a whole, as well as by their age (over 18) and stakeholder status. Additional research is needed to understand unique experiences of participation in research by stakeholder status, and varying identities and affiliations. Research is also recommended that clarifies assumptions about which stakeholders should be included and whether research ought to prioritize the experience of stakeholders with personal versus professional experience.

The design of foster care increases challenges in accessing individuals in research. These cautions are well intended and prudent in protecting the privacy of children and their families, and yet they also can increase difficulties in understanding the scope, severity and experiences of professionals, families, and individuals in the system. This research explored the perceptions, experiences, and recommendations among stakeholders in child welfare. Additional studies are needed to build upon current study findings, and to further understand how to execute a primary recommendation to facilitate reciprocal, non-transactional relationships with participants.

Aarons, G. A., Fettes, D. L., Sommerfeld, D. H., & Palinkas, L. A. (2012). Mixed methods for implementation research: Application to evidence-based Practice implementation and staff turnover in community-based organizations providing child welfare services. Child Maltreatment, 17 (1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511426908

Article Google Scholar

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). (2022). The Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/adoption-fostercare

Beidas, R. S., Marcus, S., Wolk, C. B., Powell, B., Aarons, G. A., Evans, A. C., Hurford, M. O., Hadley, T., Adams, D. R., Walsh, L. M., Babbar, S., Barg, F., & Mandell, D. S. (2016). A prospective examination of clinician and supervisor turnover within the context of implementation of evidence-based practices in a publicly-funded mental health system. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 43 (5), 640–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0673-6

Berrick, J. D., Frasch, K., & Fox, A. (2000). Assessing children’s experiences of out-of-home care: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Social Work Research, 24 (2), 119–127.

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26 (13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). “Clear as Mud”: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201

Charmaz, Kathy. (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, SAGE .

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. ResearchGate , www.researchgate.net/publication/256089360_Successful_Qualitative_Research_A_Practical_Guide_for_Beginners

Cook-Cottone, C., & Beck, M. (2007). A model for life-story work: Facilitating the construction of personal narrative for foster children. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12 (4), 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2007.00446.x

Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54 (2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.x

DePanfilis, D., & Zlotnik, J. L. (2008). Retention of front-line staff in child welfare: A systematic review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 30 (9), 995–1008.

Garcia-Quiroga, M., & Salvo Agoglia, I. (2020). Too vulnerable to participate? Challenges for meaningful participation in research with children in alternative care and adoption. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920958965

Gilbertson, R., & Barber, J. (2002). Obstacles to involving children and young people in foster care research. Child and Family Social Work, 7 , 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2002.00251.x

Giorgi, A. (2010). Phenomenology and the practice of science. Existential Analysis, 21 (1), 3–22.

Google Scholar

Gopalan, G., Hooley, C., Winters, A., & Stephens, T. (2019). Perceptions among child welfare staff when modifying a child mental health intervention to be implemented in child welfare services. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63 (3–4), 366–377.

Greiner, M. V., Beal, S. J., Allen, A., Patel, V., Meinzen-Derr, J., & Antommaria, A. H. M. (2018). Who speaks for me? Addressing variability in informed consent practices for minimal risk research involving foster youth. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 11 (4), 111–131.

Greiner, M. V., Beal, S. J., & Antommaria, A. H. M. (2020). Perspectives on informed consent practices for minimal-risk research involving foster youth. Pediatrics, 145 (4), e20192845. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2845

Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Introduction to methods in community-based participatory research for health. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, 3 , 26.

Jackson, Y., Gabrielli, J., Tunno, A. M., & Hambrick, E. P. (2012). Strategies for longitudinal research with youth in foster care: A demonstration of methods, barriers, and innovations. Child Youth Services Review, 34 (7), 1208–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.02.007

Leake, R., Rienks, S., & Obermann, A. (2017). A deeper look at burnout in the child welfare workforce. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41 (5), 492–502.

Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Myck-Wayne, J. (2012). Community mapping in action: Uncovering resources and assets for young children and their families. Young Exceptional Children, 15 (3), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250612451756

Ruff, S. C., Linville, D., & Vasquez, N. (2023). “Resilience,” as defined by foster youth and key stakeholders. Journal of Public Child Welfare , 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2023.2222665

Ruff, S. C., & Harrison, K. (2020). “Ask me what I want”: Community-based participatory research to explore transition-age foster Youth’s use of support services. Children and Youth Services Review, 108 (1), 104608.

Saldaña, J. M. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications .

Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33 (1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362

Steenbakkers, A., van der Steen, S., & Grietens, H. (2016). ‘To talk or not to talk?’: Foster youth’s experiences of sharing stories about their past and being in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 71 , 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.008

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14–4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15 (3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Watt, T., & Kim, S. (2019). Race/ethnicity and foster youth outcomes: An examination of disproportionality using the national youth in transition database. Children and Youth Services Review, 102 , 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.017

Wilson, L., & Conroy, J. (1999). Satisfaction of children in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 78 (1), 53–69.

Wilson, V. (n.d.). Guiding principles for anti-racist research, the “bodycam” for racial economic injustice. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/anti-racist-policy-research/guiding-principles-for-anti-racist-research-the-bodycam-for-racial-economic-injustice/

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank A Home Within for their long-term, consistent support of current and former foster youth, and the University of San Francisco for funding compensation of the student researchers of the Foster Care Research Group.

Open access funding provided by SCELC, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Psychology Department, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA, 94117, USA

Saralyn Ruff

Center for Transformative Healing, San Francisco, USA

Deanna Linville

University of California, Berkeley, San Francisco, USA

Quanice Hawkins

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saralyn Ruff .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The authors declare that all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.

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.

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ruff, S., Linville, D. & Hawkins, Q. A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationships Between Foster Care Stakeholders and Research. Glob Soc Welf (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-024-00349-3

Download citation

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 09 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-024-00349-3

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

Foster care
Child welfare
Foster youth
Community-based participatory action research
Child welfare research
Qualitative research
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Naturalistic Observation | Definition, Guide & Examples

Naturalistic Observation | Definition, Guide, & Examples

Published on February 10, 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering with or influencing any variables in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as “people watching” with a purpose.

What is naturalistic observation, types of naturalistic observation methods, how to collect data, data sampling, advantages of naturalistic observation, disadvantages of naturalistic observation, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about naturalistic observation.

In naturalistic observations, you study your research subjects in their own environments to explore their behaviors without any outside influence or control. It’s a research method used in field studies.

Traditionally, naturalistic observation studies have been used by animal researchers, psychologists, ethnographers, and anthropologists. Naturalistic observations are helpful as a hypothesis -generating approach, because you gather rich information that can inspire further research.

Based on his naturalistic observations, he believed that these birds imprinted on the first potential parent in their surroundings, and they quickly learned to follow them and their actions.

Naturalistic observation is especially valuable for studying behaviors and actions that may not be replicable in controlled lab settings.

Examples: Naturalistic observation in different fields

Child development	You track language development in a child’s natural environment, their own home, with an audio recording device.
Consumer research	You study how grocery shoppers navigate a store and shop differently after a layout change.
Sports psychology	You reports of drug use among athletes with in-person observations.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

Naturalistic observations can be:

Covert or overt: You either hide or reveal your identity as an observer to the participants you observe.
Participant or non-participant: You participate in the activity or behavior yourself, or you observe from the sidelines.

There are four main ways of using naturalistic observations.

Types of naturalistic observation
	Participant observation	Non-participant observation
Covert observation	Subjects are unaware that you’re observing them, because telling them may affect their behaviors. You also immerse yourself in the activity you’re researching yourself.	You don’t inform or show participants you’re observing them. You observe participants from a distance without being involved.
Covert observation	You study organizational practices in small startups by joining one as an employee. You don’t reveal that you’re a researcher, and you take notes on behavioral data in secret.	You take video recordings of classroom activities to study as an observer. Participants are unaware they’re being observed because the cameras are placed discreetly.
Overt observation	You inform or make it clear to participants that you are observing them. You also participate in the activity you’re researching yourself.	Participants are aware you’re observing them. You observe participants from a distance without being involved.
Overt observation	You join a startup as an intern and perform research there for your . You participate in the organization while studying their organizational practices with everyone’s knowledge.	You join a classroom and study student behaviors without taking part in the activities yourself. It’s clear to your participants that you’re observing them.

Importantly, all of these take place in naturalistic settings rather than experimental laboratory settings. While you may actively participate in some types of observations, you refrain from influencing others or interfering with the activities you are observing too much.

You can use a variety of data collection methods for naturalistic observations.

Audiovisual recordings

Nowadays, it’s common to collect observations through audio and video recordings so you can revisit them at a later stage or share them with other trained observers. It’s best to place these recording devices discreetly so your participants aren’t distracted by them. This can lead to a Hawthorne effect , where participants change their behavior once aware they’re being recorded.

However, make sure you receive informed consent (in a written format ) from each participant prior to recording them.

Note-taking

You can take notes while conducting naturalistic observations. Note down anything that seems relevant or important to you based on your research topic and interests in an unstructured way.

Tally counts

If you’re studying specific behaviors or events, it’s often helpful to make frequency counts of the number of times these occur during a certain time period. You can use a tally count to easily note down each instance that you observe in the moment.

There’s a lot of information you can collect when you conduct research in natural, uncontrolled environments. To simplify your data collection , you’ll often use data sampling.

Data sampling allows you to narrow down the focus of your data recording to specific times or events.

Time sampling

You record observations only at specific times. These time intervals can be randomly selected (e.g., at 8:03, 10:34, 12:51) or systematic (e.g., every 2 hours). You record whether your behaviors of interest occur during these time periods.

Event sampling

You record observations only when specific events occur. You may use a tally count to note the frequency of the event or take notes each time you see the event occurring.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity, and suitability for research topics that can’t be studied in a lab.

Flexibility

Because naturalistic observation is a non-experimental method, you’re not bound to strict procedures. You can avoid using rigid protocols and also change your methods midway if you need to.

Ecological validity

Naturalistic observations are particularly high in ecological validity , because you use real life environments instead of lab settings. People don’t always act in the same ways in and outside the lab. Your participants behave in more authentic ways when they are unaware they’re being observed, mitigating the risk of a Hawthorne effect .

Naturalistic observations help you study topics that you can’t in the lab for ethical reasons. You can also use technology to record conversations, behaviors, or other noise, provided you have consent or it’s otherwise ethically permissible.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control, ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

Lack of control

Since you perform research in natural environments, you can’t control the setting or any variables . Without this control, you won’t be able to draw conclusions about causal relationships . You also may not be able to replicate your findings in other contexts, with other people, or at other times.

Ethical considerations

Most people don’t want to be observed as they’re going about their day without their explicit consent or awareness. It’s important to always respect privacy and try to be unobtrusive. It’s also best to use naturalistic observations only in public situations where people expect they won’t be alone.

Observer bias

Because you indirectly collect data, there’s always a risk of observer bias in naturalistic observations. Your perceptions and interpretations of behavior may be influenced by your own experiences, and inaccurately represent the truth. This type of bias is particularly likely to occur in participant observation methods.

Subject bias

When you observe subjects in their natural environment, they may sometimes be aware they’re being observed. As a result, they may change their behaviors to act in more socially desirable ways to confirm your expectations, or the perception of high or low expectations may cause a Pygmalion effect .

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Student’s t -distribution
Normal distribution
Null and Alternative Hypotheses
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles
Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Data cleansing
Reproducibility vs Replicability
Peer review
Prospective cohort study

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Placebo effect
Hawthorne effect
Hindsight bias
Affect heuristic
Social desirability bias

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

You can use several tactics to minimize observer bias .

Use masking (blinding) to hide the purpose of your study from all observers.
Triangulate your data with different data collection methods or sources.
Use multiple observers and ensure interrater reliability.
Train your observers to make sure data is consistently recorded between them.
Standardize your observation procedures to make sure they are structured and clear.

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Naturalistic Observation | Definition, Guide, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/naturalistic-observation/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, data collection | definition, methods & examples, observer bias | definition, examples, prevention, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

COMMENTS

Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers
Health research study designs benefit from observations of behaviors and contexts. •. Direct observation methods have a long history in the social sciences. •. Social science approaches should be adapted for health researchers' unique needs. •. Health research observations should be feasible, well-defined and piloted.
Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers
Direct observation across a health research study. 3.1. Study development3.1.1. ... See Fix et al [1] and McCullough et al [4] for examples on how to include semi-structured, qualitative observation data in a manuscript and Waisel et al [17] and Kuhn et al [19] for examples of reporting structured, quantitative data in a manuscript.
Observations in Qualitative Inquiry: When What You See Is Not What You
Observation in qualitative research "is one of the oldest and most fundamental research methods approaches. This approach involves collecting data using one's senses, especially looking and listening in a systematic and meaningful way" (McKechnie, 2008, p. 573).Similarly, Adler and Adler (1994) characterized observations as the "fundamental base of all research methods" in the social ...
What Is Qualitative Observation?
Qualitative observation is a type of observational study, often used in conjunction with other types of research through triangulation. It is often used in fields like social sciences, education, healthcare, marketing, and design. This type of study is especially well suited for gaining rich and detailed insights into complex and/or subjective ...
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). Participant Observation. Researcher becomes a participant in the culture or context being observed.
Direct Observation
Direct observation is used when other data collection procedures, such as surveys, questionnaires, etc., are not effective; when the goal is to evaluate an ongoing behavior process, event, or situation; or when there are physical outcomes that can be readily seen. Direct observation can be overt, when the subject and individuals in the ...
Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health ...
Objective: To provide health research teams with a practical, methodologically rigorous guide on how to conduct direct observation. Methods: Synthesis of authors' observation-based teaching and research experiences in social sciences and health services research. Results: This article serves as a guide for making key decisions in studies ...
Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health Researchers
Finally, researchers conducted direct observations, which is a qualitative data collection technique where researchers join individuals in a specific environment doing activities of interest and ...
Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers
Abstract. Objective: To provide health research teams with a practical, methodologically rigorous guide on how to conduct direct observation. Methods: Synthesis of authors' observation-based teaching and research experiences in social sciences and health services research. Results: This article serves as a guide for making key decisions in ...
PDF Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health Researchers
1. INTRODUCTION. Health research studies increasingly include direct observation methods [1-5]. Observation provides unique information about human behavior related to healthcare processes, events ...
How to use and assess qualitative research methods
Abstract. This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions ...
Chapter 13. Participant Observation
Introduction. Although there are many possible forms of data collection in the qualitative researcher's toolkit, the two predominant forms are interviewing and observing. This chapter and the following chapter explore observational data collection. While most observers also include interviewing, many interviewers do not also include observation.
PDF Participant Observation
As such, direct observation is normally a fairly structured form of data collection. In contrast, participant observation is inherently a qualitative and interactive experience and relatively unstructured. It is generally associated with exploratory and explanatory research objectives—why questions, causal explanations, uncovering the
What Is Qualitative Research?
Qualitative research methods. Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods.These are some of the most common qualitative methods: Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes. Interviews: personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations. Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among ...
Observation
Direct Observation. Researcher strives to be as unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias the observations; must remain detached. ... Qualitative observation and interview study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(2), 154-165. doi: ... The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE ...
Qualitative Research Definition and Methods
Updated on February 02, 2020. Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from these data that help understand social life through the study of targeted populations or places. People often frame it in opposition to quantitative research, which uses ...
Understanding qualitative observation
Qualitative observation is a powerful research method you can apply to many situations. As each situation is unique, choosing the right approach is essential. You can employ several types of qualitative observation, which all have strengths and limitations: Direct observation
What is Qualitative Observation?
There are qualitative and quantitative observations. A quantitative observation can involve measurements of the numerical value of observed phenomena (e.g., the size of a crowd or the weight of an object). The quantitative data collected from such an observation might be helpful for a statistical research study in contexts where the theory is ...
Qualitative Research
Qualitative Research. Qualitative research is a type of research methodology that focuses on exploring and understanding people's beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. It seeks to answer research questions through the examination of subjective data, such as interviews, focus groups, observations, and textual analysis.
What Is Participant Observation?
Participant observation is a common research method in social sciences, with findings often published in research reports used to inform policymakers or other stakeholders. Example: Rural community participant observation. You are studying the social dynamics of a small rural community located near where you grew up.
Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health Researchers
Given observation's history in the social sciences there is a need to tailor observation to the healthcare context, with attention to the dynamics and needs of the research team. This paper provides contemporary healthcare research teams a practical, methodologically rigorous guide on when and how to conduct observation. 2.
Qualitative Methods
One of the most common methods for qualitative data collection, participant observation is also one of the most demanding. It requires that the researcher become a participant in the culture or context being observed. The literature on participant observation discusses how to enter the context, the role of the researcher as a participant, the ...
A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationships Between Foster Care
Research on foster care from the perspective of key stakeholders with lived and professional experience is necessary to inform programs, policy and practice. Numerous barriers exist to accessing these populations and ensuring inclusion and representation in research. This study interviewed twenty-two stakeholders with lived and/or professional experience in foster care to gain their ...
Naturalistic Observation
Revised on June 22, 2023. Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviors of your research subjects in real world settings. You avoid interfering with or influencing any variables in a naturalistic observation. You can think of naturalistic observation as "people watching" with a purpose.

Qualitative Research: Observation

Field Guide

What is an observation?

Suggested Readings and Film

Services for...

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Direct Observation Methods: a Practical Guide for Health Researchers

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

The Directory of Open Access Journals

Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers

WeChat QR code

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Wolfgang Wick

Christoph Gumbinger

What is qualitative research?

Why conduct qualitative research?

How to conduct qualitative research?

Data collection

Document study

Observations

Semi-structured interviews

Focus groups

Choosing the “right” method

Data analysis

How to report qualitative research?

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

How to assess qualitative research?

Reflexivity

Sampling and saturation

Member checking

Stakeholder involvement

How not to assess qualitative research

Protocol adherence

Sample size

Randomisation

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

Not being quantitative research

Acknowledgements

Authors’ contributions

Availability of data and materials

Chapter 13. Participant Observation

What is Participant Observation?

Observation and Qualitative Traditions

Entry Access and Issues

Reflexivity in Fieldwork

The Data of Observational Work: Fieldnotes

Ethics of Fieldwork

Summary Checklist for Successful Participant Observation

Further Readings

Qualitative study design: Observation

Observation

Limitations

Example questions

Example studies

An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods

Key Takeaways

Pros and Cons

Understanding qualitative observation

Analyze qualitative observations

Qualitative vs. quantitative observation

Naturalistic inquiry

Participant observation

Sensitivity to context

Reflexivity

Empathic neutrality

Subjectivity

Inductive reasoning

Direct observation

Case studies

Researcher as participant

Focus groups

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Editor’s picks

Latest articles

Log in or sign up

What is Qualitative Observation?