example of presentation of data in qualitative research

• AI Templates
• Get a demo Sign up for free Log in Log in

Buttoning up research: How to present and visualize qualitative data

15 Minute Read

There is no doubt that data visualization is an important part of the qualitative research process. Whether you're preparing a presentation or writing up a report, effective visualizations can help make your findings clear and understandable for your audience. 

In this blog post, we'll discuss some tips for creating effective visualizations of qualitative data. 

First, let's take a closer look at what exactly qualitative data is.

What is qualitative data?

Qualitative data is information gathered through observation, questionnaires, and interviews. It's often subjective, meaning that the researcher has to interpret it to draw meaningful conclusions from it. 

The difference between qualitative data and quantitative data

When researchers use the terms qualitative and quantitative, they're referring to two different types of data. Qualitative data is subjective and descriptive, while quantitative data is objective and numerical.

Qualitative data is often used in research involving psychology or sociology. This is usually where a researcher may be trying to identify patterns or concepts related to people's behavior or attitudes. It may also be used in research involving economics or finance, where the focus is on numerical values such as price points or profit margins. 

Before we delve into how best to present and visualize qualitative data, it's important that we highlight how to be gathering this data in the first place. ‍

How best to gather qualitative data

In order to create an effective visualization of qualitative data, ensure that the right kind of information has been gathered. 

Here are six ways to gather the most accurate qualitative data:

• Define your research question: What data is being set out to collect? A qualitative research question is a definite or clear statement about a condition to be improved, a project’s area of concern, a troubling question that exists, or a difficulty to be eliminated. It not only defines who the participants will be but guides the data collection methods needed to achieve the most detailed responses.
• ‍ Determine the best data collection method(s): The data collected should be appropriate to answer the research question. Some common qualitative data collection methods include interviews, focus groups, observations, or document analysis. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of each option before deciding which one is best suited to answer the research question.  ‍
• Develop a cohesive interview guide: Creating an interview guide allows researchers to ask more specific questions and encourages thoughtful responses from participants. It’s important to design questions in such a way that they are centered around the topic of discussion and elicit meaningful insight into the issue at hand. Avoid leading or biased questions that could influence participants’ answers, and be aware of cultural nuances that may affect their answers.
• ‍ Stay neutral – let participants share their stories: The goal is to obtain useful information, not to influence the participant’s answer. Allowing participants to express themselves freely will help to gather more honest and detailed responses. It’s important to maintain a neutral tone throughout interviews and avoid judgment or opinions while they are sharing their story. 
• ‍ Work with at least one additional team member when conducting qualitative research: Participants should always feel comfortable while providing feedback on a topic, so it can be helpful to have an extra team member present during the interview process – particularly if this person is familiar with the topic being discussed. This will ensure that the atmosphere of the interview remains respectful and encourages participants to speak openly and honestly.
• ‍ Analyze your findings: Once all of the data has been collected, it’s important to analyze it in order to draw meaningful conclusions. Use tools such as qualitative coding or content analysis to identify patterns or themes in the data, then compare them with prior research or other data sources. This will help to draw more accurate and useful insights from the results. 

By following these steps, you will be well-prepared to collect and analyze qualitative data for your research project. Next, let's focus on how best to present the qualitative data that you have gathered and analyzed.

Create your own AI-powered templates for better, faster research synthesis. Discover new customer insights from data instantly.

The top 10 things Notably shipped in 2023 and themes for 2024.

How to visually present qualitative data.

When it comes to how to present qualitative data visually, the goal is to make research findings clear and easy to understand. To do this, use visuals that are both attractive and informative. 

Presenting qualitative data visually helps to bring the user’s attention to specific items and draw them into a more in-depth analysis. Visuals provide an efficient way to communicate complex information, making it easier for the audience to comprehend. 

Additionally, visuals can help engage an audience by making a presentation more interesting and interactive.

Here are some tips for creating effective visuals from qualitative data:

• ‍ Choose the right type of visualization: Consider which type of visual would best convey the story that is being told through the research. For example, bar charts or line graphs might be appropriate for tracking changes over time, while pie charts or word clouds could help show patterns in categorical data. 
• ‍ Include contextual information: In addition to showing the actual numbers, it's helpful to include any relevant contextual information in order to provide context for the audience. This can include details such as the sample size, any anomalies that occurred during data collection, or other environmental factors.
• ‍ Make it easy to understand: Always keep visuals simple and avoid adding too much detail or complexity. This will help ensure that viewers can quickly grasp the main points without getting overwhelmed by all of the information. 
• ‍ Use color strategically: Color can be used to draw attention to certain elements in your visual and make it easier for viewers to find the most important parts of it. Just be sure not to use too many different colors, as this could create confusion instead of clarity. 
• ‍ Use charts or whiteboards: Using charts or whiteboards can help to explain the data in more detail and get viewers engaged in a discussion. This type of visual tool can also be used to create storyboards that illustrate the data over time, helping to bring your research to life. 

Visualizing qualitative data in Notably

Notably helps researchers visualize their data on a flexible canvas, charts, and evidence based insights. As an all-in-one research platform, Notably enables researchers to collect, analyze and present qualitative data effectively.

Notably provides an intuitive interface for analyzing data from a variety of sources, including interviews, surveys, desk research, and more. Its powerful analytics engine then helps you to quickly identify insights and trends in your data . Finally, the platform makes it easy to create beautiful visuals that will help to communicate research findings with confidence. 

Research Frameworks in Analysis

The canvas in Analysis is a multi-dimensional workspace to play with your data spatially to find likeness and tension. Here, you may use a grounded theory approach to drag and drop notes into themes or patterns that emerge in your research. Utilizing the canvas tools such as shapes, lines, and images, allows researchers to build out frameworks such as journey maps, empathy maps, 2x2's, etc. to help synthesize their data.

Going one step further, you may begin to apply various lenses to this data driven canvas. For example, recoloring by sentiment shows where pain points may distributed across your customer journey. Or, recoloring by participant may reveal if one of your participants may be creating a bias towards a particular theme.

Exploring Qualitative Data through a Quantitative Lens

Once you have begun your analysis, you may visualize your qualitative data in a quantitative way through charts. You may choose between a pie chart and or a stacked bar chart to visualize your data. From here, you can segment your data to break down the ‘bar’ in your bar chart and slices in your pie chart one step further.

To segment your data, you can choose between ‘Tag group’, ‘Tag’, ‘Theme’, and ‘Participant'. Each group shows up as its own bar in the bar chart or slice in the pie chart. For example, try grouping data as ‘Participant’ to see the volume of notes assigned to each person. Or, group by ‘Tag group’ to see which of your tag groups have the most notes.

Depending on how you’ve grouped or segmented your charts will affect the options available to color your chart. Charts use colors that are a mix of sentiment, tag, theme, and default colors. Consider color as a way of assigning another layer of meaning to your data. For example, choose a red color for tags or themes that are areas of friction or pain points. Use blue for tags that represent opportunities.

AI Powered Insights and Cover Images

One of the most powerful features in Analysis is the ability to generate insights with AI. Insights combine information, inspiration, and intuition to help bridge the gap between knowledge and wisdom. Even before you have any tags or themes, you may generate an AI Insight from your entire data set. You'll be able to choose one of our AI Insight templates that are inspired by trusted design thinking frameworks to stimulate generative, and divergent thinking. With just the click of a button, you'll get an insight that captures the essence and story of your research. You may experiment with a combination of tags, themes, and different templates or, create your own custom AI template. These insights are all evidence-based, and are centered on the needs of real people. You may package these insights up to present your research by embedding videos, quotes and using AI to generate unique cover image.

You can sign up to run an end to end research project for free and receive tips on how to make the most out of your data. Want to chat about how Notably can help your team do better, faster research? Book some time here for a 1:1 demo with your whole team.

Introducing Notably + Miro Integration: 3 Tips to Analyze Miro Boards with AI in Notably

5 Steps to turn data into insights with Notably

Give your research synthesis superpowers..

Try Teams for 7 days

Free for 1 project

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Qualitative Data Analysis

23 Presenting the Results of Qualitative Analysis

Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur

Qualitative research is not finished just because you have determined the main findings or conclusions of your study. Indeed, disseminating the results is an essential part of the research process. By sharing your results with others, whether in written form as scholarly paper or an applied report or in some alternative format like an oral presentation, an infographic, or a video, you ensure that your findings become part of the ongoing conversation of scholarship in your field, forming part of the foundation for future researchers. This chapter provides an introduction to writing about qualitative research findings. It will outline how writing continues to contribute to the analysis process, what concerns researchers should keep in mind as they draft their presentations of findings, and how best to organize qualitative research writing

As you move through the research process, it is essential to keep yourself organized. Organizing your data, memos, and notes aids both the analytical and the writing processes. Whether you use electronic or physical, real-world filing and organizational systems, these systems help make sense of the mountains of data you have and assure you focus your attention on the themes and ideas you have determined are important (Warren and Karner 2015). Be sure that you have kept detailed notes on all of the decisions you have made and procedures you have followed in carrying out research design, data collection, and analysis, as these will guide your ultimate write-up.

First and foremost, researchers should keep in mind that writing is in fact a form of thinking. Writing is an excellent way to discover ideas and arguments and to further develop an analysis. As you write, more ideas will occur to you, things that were previously confusing will start to make sense, and arguments will take a clear shape rather than being amorphous and poorly-organized. However, writing-as-thinking cannot be the final version that you share with others. Good-quality writing does not display the workings of your thought process. It is reorganized and revised (more on that later) to present the data and arguments important in a particular piece. And revision is totally normal! No one expects the first draft of a piece of writing to be ready for prime time. So write rough drafts and memos and notes to yourself and use them to think, and then revise them until the piece is the way you want it to be for sharing.

Bergin (2018) lays out a set of key concerns for appropriate writing about research. First, present your results accurately, without exaggerating or misrepresenting. It is very easy to overstate your findings by accident if you are enthusiastic about what you have found, so it is important to take care and use appropriate cautions about the limitations of the research. You also need to work to ensure that you communicate your findings in a way people can understand, using clear and appropriate language that is adjusted to the level of those you are communicating with. And you must be clear and transparent about the methodological strategies employed in the research. Remember, the goal is, as much as possible, to describe your research in a way that would permit others to replicate the study. There are a variety of other concerns and decision points that qualitative researchers must keep in mind, including the extent to which to include quantification in their presentation of results, ethics, considerations of audience and voice, and how to bring the richness of qualitative data to life.

Quantification, as you have learned, refers to the process of turning data into numbers. It can indeed be very useful to count and tabulate quantitative data drawn from qualitative research. For instance, if you were doing a study of dual-earner households and wanted to know how many had an equal division of household labor and how many did not, you might want to count those numbers up and include them as part of the final write-up. However, researchers need to take care when they are writing about quantified qualitative data. Qualitative data is not as generalizable as quantitative data, so quantification can be very misleading. Thus, qualitative researchers should strive to use raw numbers instead of the percentages that are more appropriate for quantitative research. Writing, for instance, “15 of the 20 people I interviewed prefer pancakes to waffles” is a simple description of the data; writing “75% of people prefer pancakes” suggests a generalizable claim that is not likely supported by the data. Note that mixing numbers with qualitative data is really a type of mixed-methods approach. Mixed-methods approaches are good, but sometimes they seduce researchers into focusing on the persuasive power of numbers and tables rather than capitalizing on the inherent richness of their qualitative data.

A variety of issues of scholarly ethics and research integrity are raised by the writing process. Some of these are unique to qualitative research, while others are more universal concerns for all academic and professional writing. For example, it is essential to avoid plagiarism and misuse of sources. All quotations that appear in a text must be properly cited, whether with in-text and bibliographic citations to the source or with an attribution to the research participant (or the participant’s pseudonym or description in order to protect confidentiality) who said those words. Where writers will paraphrase a text or a participant’s words, they need to make sure that the paraphrase they develop accurately reflects the meaning of the original words. Thus, some scholars suggest that participants should have the opportunity to read (or to have read to them, if they cannot read the text themselves) all sections of the text in which they, their words, or their ideas are presented to ensure accuracy and enable participants to maintain control over their lives.

Audience and Voice

When writing, researchers must consider their audience(s) and the effects they want their writing to have on these audiences. The designated audience will dictate the voice used in the writing, or the individual style and personality of a piece of text. Keep in mind that the potential audience for qualitative research is often much more diverse than that for quantitative research because of the accessibility of the data and the extent to which the writing can be accessible and interesting. Yet individual pieces of writing are typically pitched to a more specific subset of the audience.

Let us consider one potential research study, an ethnography involving participant-observation of the same children both when they are at daycare facility and when they are at home with their families to try to understand how daycare might impact behavior and social development. The findings of this study might be of interest to a wide variety of potential audiences: academic peers, whether at your own academic institution, in your broader discipline, or multidisciplinary; people responsible for creating laws and policies; practitioners who run or teach at day care centers; and the general public, including both people who are interested in child development more generally and those who are themselves parents making decisions about child care for their own children. And the way you write for each of these audiences will be somewhat different. Take a moment and think through what some of these differences might look like.

If you are writing to academic audiences, using specialized academic language and working within the typical constraints of scholarly genres, as will be discussed below, can be an important part of convincing others that your work is legitimate and should be taken seriously. Your writing will be formal. Even if you are writing for students and faculty you already know—your classmates, for instance—you are often asked to imitate the style of academic writing that is used in publications, as this is part of learning to become part of the scholarly conversation. When speaking to academic audiences outside your discipline, you may need to be more careful about jargon and specialized language, as disciplines do not always share the same key terms. For instance, in sociology, scholars use the term diffusion to refer to the way new ideas or practices spread from organization to organization. In the field of international relations, scholars often used the term cascade to refer to the way ideas or practices spread from nation to nation. These terms are describing what is fundamentally the same concept, but they are different terms—and a scholar from one field might have no idea what a scholar from a different field is talking about! Therefore, while the formality and academic structure of the text would stay the same, a writer with a multidisciplinary audience might need to pay more attention to defining their terms in the body of the text.

It is not only other academic scholars who expect to see formal writing. Policymakers tend to expect formality when ideas are presented to them, as well. However, the content and style of the writing will be different. Much less academic jargon should be used, and the most important findings and policy implications should be emphasized right from the start rather than initially focusing on prior literature and theoretical models as you might for an academic audience. Long discussions of research methods should also be minimized. Similarly, when you write for practitioners, the findings and implications for practice should be highlighted. The reading level of the text will vary depending on the typical background of the practitioners to whom you are writing—you can make very different assumptions about the general knowledge and reading abilities of a group of hospital medical directors with MDs than you can about a group of case workers who have a post-high-school certificate. Consider the primary language of your audience as well. The fact that someone can get by in spoken English does not mean they have the vocabulary or English reading skills to digest a complex report. But the fact that someone’s vocabulary is limited says little about their intellectual abilities, so try your best to convey the important complexity of the ideas and findings from your research without dumbing them down—even if you must limit your vocabulary usage.

When writing for the general public, you will want to move even further towards emphasizing key findings and policy implications, but you also want to draw on the most interesting aspects of your data. General readers will read sociological texts that are rich with ethnographic or other kinds of detail—it is almost like reality television on a page! And this is a contrast to busy policymakers and practitioners, who probably want to learn the main findings as quickly as possible so they can go about their busy lives. But also keep in mind that there is a wide variation in reading levels. Journalists at publications pegged to the general public are often advised to write at about a tenth-grade reading level, which would leave most of the specialized terminology we develop in our research fields out of reach. If you want to be accessible to even more people, your vocabulary must be even more limited. The excellent exercise of trying to write using the 1,000 most common English words, available at the Up-Goer Five website ( https://www.splasho.com/upgoer5/ ) does a good job of illustrating this challenge (Sanderson n.d.).

Another element of voice is whether to write in the first person. While many students are instructed to avoid the use of the first person in academic writing, this advice needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are indeed many contexts in which the first person is best avoided, at least as long as writers can find ways to build strong, comprehensible sentences without its use, including most quantitative research writing. However, if the alternative to using the first person is crafting a sentence like “it is proposed that the researcher will conduct interviews,” it is preferable to write “I propose to conduct interviews.” In qualitative research, in fact, the use of the first person is far more common. This is because the researcher is central to the research project. Qualitative researchers can themselves be understood as research instruments, and thus eliminating the use of the first person in writing is in a sense eliminating information about the conduct of the researchers themselves.

But the question really extends beyond the issue of first-person or third-person. Qualitative researchers have choices about how and whether to foreground themselves in their writing, not just in terms of using the first person, but also in terms of whether to emphasize their own subjectivity and reflexivity, their impressions and ideas, and their role in the setting. In contrast, conventional quantitative research in the positivist tradition really tries to eliminate the author from the study—which indeed is exactly why typical quantitative research avoids the use of the first person. Keep in mind that emphasizing researchers’ roles and reflexivity and using the first person does not mean crafting articles that provide overwhelming detail about the author’s thoughts and practices. Readers do not need to hear, and should not be told, which database you used to search for journal articles, how many hours you spent transcribing, or whether the research process was stressful—save these things for the memos you write to yourself. Rather, readers need to hear how you interacted with research participants, how your standpoint may have shaped the findings, and what analytical procedures you carried out.

Making Data Come Alive

One of the most important parts of writing about qualitative research is presenting the data in a way that makes its richness and value accessible to readers. As the discussion of analysis in the prior chapter suggests, there are a variety of ways to do this. Researchers may select key quotes or images to illustrate points, write up specific case studies that exemplify their argument, or develop vignettes (little stories) that illustrate ideas and themes, all drawing directly on the research data. Researchers can also write more lengthy summaries, narratives, and thick descriptions.

Nearly all qualitative work includes quotes from research participants or documents to some extent, though ethnographic work may focus more on thick description than on relaying participants’ own words. When quotes are presented, they must be explained and interpreted—they cannot stand on their own. This is one of the ways in which qualitative research can be distinguished from journalism. Journalism presents what happened, but social science needs to present the “why,” and the why is best explained by the researcher.

So how do authors go about integrating quotes into their written work? Julie Posselt (2017), a sociologist who studies graduate education, provides a set of instructions. First of all, authors need to remain focused on the core questions of their research, and avoid getting distracted by quotes that are interesting or attention-grabbing but not so relevant to the research question. Selecting the right quotes, those that illustrate the ideas and arguments of the paper, is an important part of the writing process. Second, not all quotes should be the same length (just like not all sentences or paragraphs in a paper should be the same length). Include some quotes that are just phrases, others that are a sentence or so, and others that are longer. We call longer quotes, generally those more than about three lines long, block quotes , and they are typically indented on both sides to set them off from the surrounding text. For all quotes, be sure to summarize what the quote should be telling or showing the reader, connect this quote to other quotes that are similar or different, and provide transitions in the discussion to move from quote to quote and from topic to topic. Especially for longer quotes, it is helpful to do some of this writing before the quote to preview what is coming and other writing after the quote to make clear what readers should have come to understand. Remember, it is always the author’s job to interpret the data. Presenting excerpts of the data, like quotes, in a form the reader can access does not minimize the importance of this job. Be sure that you are explaining the meaning of the data you present.

A few more notes about writing with quotes: avoid patchwriting, whether in your literature review or the section of your paper in which quotes from respondents are presented. Patchwriting is a writing practice wherein the author lightly paraphrases original texts but stays so close to those texts that there is little the author has added. Sometimes, this even takes the form of presenting a series of quotes, properly documented, with nothing much in the way of text generated by the author. A patchwriting approach does not build the scholarly conversation forward, as it does not represent any kind of new contribution on the part of the author. It is of course fine to paraphrase quotes, as long as the meaning is not changed. But if you use direct quotes, do not edit the text of the quotes unless how you edit them does not change the meaning and you have made clear through the use of ellipses (…) and brackets ([])what kinds of edits have been made. For example, consider this exchange from Matthew Desmond’s (2012:1317) research on evictions:

The thing was, I wasn’t never gonna let Crystal come and stay with me from the get go. I just told her that to throw her off. And she wasn’t fittin’ to come stay with me with no money…No. Nope. You might as well stay in that shelter.

A paraphrase of this exchange might read “She said that she was going to let Crystal stay with her if Crystal did not have any money.” Paraphrases like that are fine. What is not fine is rewording the statement but treating it like a quote, for instance writing:

The thing was, I was not going to let Crystal come and stay with me from beginning. I just told her that to throw her off. And it was not proper for her to come stay with me without any money…No. Nope. You might as well stay in that shelter.

But as you can see, the change in language and style removes some of the distinct meaning of the original quote. Instead, writers should leave as much of the original language as possible. If some text in the middle of the quote needs to be removed, as in this example, ellipses are used to show that this has occurred. And if a word needs to be added to clarify, it is placed in square brackets to show that it was not part of the original quote.

Data can also be presented through the use of data displays like tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and infographics created for publication or presentation, as well as through the use of visual material collected during the research process. Note that if visuals are used, the author must have the legal right to use them. Photographs or diagrams created by the author themselves—or by research participants who have signed consent forms for their work to be used, are fine. But photographs, and sometimes even excerpts from archival documents, may be owned by others from whom researchers must get permission in order to use them.

A large percentage of qualitative research does not include any data displays or visualizations. Therefore, researchers should carefully consider whether the use of data displays will help the reader understand the data. One of the most common types of data displays used by qualitative researchers are simple tables. These might include tables summarizing key data about cases included in the study; tables laying out the characteristics of different taxonomic elements or types developed as part of the analysis; tables counting the incidence of various elements; and 2×2 tables (two columns and two rows) illuminating a theory. Basic network or process diagrams are also commonly included. If data displays are used, it is essential that researchers include context and analysis alongside data displays rather than letting them stand by themselves, and it is preferable to continue to present excerpts and examples from the data rather than just relying on summaries in the tables.

If you will be using graphs, infographics, or other data visualizations, it is important that you attend to making them useful and accurate (Bergin 2018). Think about the viewer or user as your audience and ensure the data visualizations will be comprehensible. You may need to include more detail or labels than you might think. Ensure that data visualizations are laid out and labeled clearly and that you make visual choices that enhance viewers’ ability to understand the points you intend to communicate using the visual in question. Finally, given the ease with which it is possible to design visuals that are deceptive or misleading, it is essential to make ethical and responsible choices in the construction of visualization so that viewers will interpret them in accurate ways.

The Genre of Research Writing

As discussed above, the style and format in which results are presented depends on the audience they are intended for. These differences in styles and format are part of the genre of writing. Genre is a term referring to the rules of a specific form of creative or productive work. Thus, the academic journal article—and student papers based on this form—is one genre. A report or policy paper is another. The discussion below will focus on the academic journal article, but note that reports and policy papers follow somewhat different formats. They might begin with an executive summary of one or a few pages, include minimal background, focus on key findings, and conclude with policy implications, shifting methods and details about the data to an appendix. But both academic journal articles and policy papers share some things in common, for instance the necessity for clear writing, a well-organized structure, and the use of headings.

So what factors make up the genre of the academic journal article in sociology? While there is some flexibility, particularly for ethnographic work, academic journal articles tend to follow a fairly standard format. They begin with a “title page” that includes the article title (often witty and involving scholarly inside jokes, but more importantly clearly describing the content of the article); the authors’ names and institutional affiliations, an abstract , and sometimes keywords designed to help others find the article in databases. An abstract is a short summary of the article that appears both at the very beginning of the article and in search databases. Abstracts are designed to aid readers by giving them the opportunity to learn enough about an article that they can determine whether it is worth their time to read the complete text. They are written about the article, and thus not in the first person, and clearly summarize the research question, methodological approach, main findings, and often the implications of the research.

After the abstract comes an “introduction” of a page or two that details the research question, why it matters, and what approach the paper will take. This is followed by a literature review of about a quarter to a third the length of the entire paper. The literature review is often divided, with headings, into topical subsections, and is designed to provide a clear, thorough overview of the prior research literature on which a paper has built—including prior literature the new paper contradicts. At the end of the literature review it should be made clear what researchers know about the research topic and question, what they do not know, and what this new paper aims to do to address what is not known.

The next major section of the paper is the section that describes research design, data collection, and data analysis, often referred to as “research methods” or “methodology.” This section is an essential part of any written or oral presentation of your research. Here, you tell your readers or listeners “how you collected and interpreted your data” (Taylor, Bogdan, and DeVault 2016:215). Taylor, Bogdan, and DeVault suggest that the discussion of your research methods include the following:

• The particular approach to data collection used in the study;
• Any theoretical perspective(s) that shaped your data collection and analytical approach;
• When the study occurred, over how long, and where (concealing identifiable details as needed);
• A description of the setting and participants, including sampling and selection criteria (if an interview-based study, the number of participants should be clearly stated);
• The researcher’s perspective in carrying out the study, including relevant elements of their identity and standpoint, as well as their role (if any) in research settings; and
• The approach to analyzing the data.

After the methods section comes a section, variously titled but often called “data,” that takes readers through the analysis. This section is where the thick description narrative; the quotes, broken up by theme or topic, with their interpretation; the discussions of case studies; most data displays (other than perhaps those outlining a theoretical model or summarizing descriptive data about cases); and other similar material appears. The idea of the data section is to give readers the ability to see the data for themselves and to understand how this data supports the ultimate conclusions. Note that all tables and figures included in formal publications should be titled and numbered.

At the end of the paper come one or two summary sections, often called “discussion” and/or “conclusion.” If there is a separate discussion section, it will focus on exploring the overall themes and findings of the paper. The conclusion clearly and succinctly summarizes the findings and conclusions of the paper, the limitations of the research and analysis, any suggestions for future research building on the paper or addressing these limitations, and implications, be they for scholarship and theory or policy and practice.

After the end of the textual material in the paper comes the bibliography, typically called “works cited” or “references.” The references should appear in a consistent citation style—in sociology, we often use the American Sociological Association format (American Sociological Association 2019), but other formats may be used depending on where the piece will eventually be published. Care should be taken to ensure that in-text citations also reflect the chosen citation style. In some papers, there may be an appendix containing supplemental information such as a list of interview questions or an additional data visualization.

Note that when researchers give presentations to scholarly audiences, the presentations typically follow a format similar to that of scholarly papers, though given time limitations they are compressed. Abstracts and works cited are often not part of the presentation, though in-text citations are still used. The literature review presented will be shortened to only focus on the most important aspects of the prior literature, and only key examples from the discussion of data will be included. For long or complex papers, sometimes only one of several findings is the focus of the presentation. Of course, presentations for other audiences may be constructed differently, with greater attention to interesting elements of the data and findings as well as implications and less to the literature review and methods.

Concluding Your Work

After you have written a complete draft of the paper, be sure you take the time to revise and edit your work. There are several important strategies for revision. First, put your work away for a little while. Even waiting a day to revise is better than nothing, but it is best, if possible, to take much more time away from the text. This helps you forget what your writing looks like and makes it easier to find errors, mistakes, and omissions. Second, show your work to others. Ask them to read your work and critique it, pointing out places where the argument is weak, where you may have overlooked alternative explanations, where the writing could be improved, and what else you need to work on. Finally, read your work out loud to yourself (or, if you really need an audience, try reading to some stuffed animals). Reading out loud helps you catch wrong words, tricky sentences, and many other issues. But as important as revision is, try to avoid perfectionism in writing (Warren and Karner 2015). Writing can always be improved, no matter how much time you spend on it. Those improvements, however, have diminishing returns, and at some point the writing process needs to conclude so the writing can be shared with the world.

Of course, the main goal of writing up the results of a research project is to share with others. Thus, researchers should be considering how they intend to disseminate their results. What conferences might be appropriate? Where can the paper be submitted? Note that if you are an undergraduate student, there are a wide variety of journals that accept and publish research conducted by undergraduates. Some publish across disciplines, while others are specific to disciplines. Other work, such as reports, may be best disseminated by publication online on relevant organizational websites.

After a project is completed, be sure to take some time to organize your research materials and archive them for longer-term storage. Some Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols require that original data, such as interview recordings, transcripts, and field notes, be preserved for a specific number of years in a protected (locked for paper or password-protected for digital) form and then destroyed, so be sure that your plans adhere to the IRB requirements. Be sure you keep any materials that might be relevant for future related research or for answering questions people may ask later about your project.

And then what? Well, then it is time to move on to your next research project. Research is a long-term endeavor, not a one-time-only activity. We build our skills and our expertise as we continue to pursue research. So keep at it.

• Find a short article that uses qualitative methods. The sociological magazine Contexts is a good place to find such pieces. Write an abstract of the article.
• Choose a sociological journal article on a topic you are interested in that uses some form of qualitative methods and is at least 20 pages long. Rewrite the article as a five-page research summary accessible to non-scholarly audiences.
• Choose a concept or idea you have learned in this course and write an explanation of it using the Up-Goer Five Text Editor ( https://www.splasho.com/upgoer5/ ), a website that restricts your writing to the 1,000 most common English words. What was this experience like? What did it teach you about communicating with people who have a more limited English-language vocabulary—and what did it teach you about the utility of having access to complex academic language?
• Select five or more sociological journal articles that all use the same basic type of qualitative methods (interviewing, ethnography, documents, or visual sociology). Using what you have learned about coding, code the methods sections of each article, and use your coding to figure out what is common in how such articles discuss their research design, data collection, and analysis methods.
• Return to an exercise you completed earlier in this course and revise your work. What did you change? How did revising impact the final product?
• Find a quote from the transcript of an interview, a social media post, or elsewhere that has not yet been interpreted or explained. Write a paragraph that includes the quote along with an explanation of its sociological meaning or significance.

The style or personality of a piece of writing, including such elements as tone, word choice, syntax, and rhythm.

A quotation, usually one of some length, which is set off from the main text by being indented on both sides rather than being placed in quotation marks.

A classification of written or artistic work based on form, content, and style.

A short summary of a text written from the perspective of a reader rather than from the perspective of an author.

Social Data Analysis Copyright © 2021 by Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Subject Research
• Qualitative Research Resources
• Presenting Qualitative Research

Qualitative Research Resources: Presenting Qualitative Research

Created by health science librarians.

• What is Qualitative Research?
• Qualitative Research Basics
• Special Topics
• Training Opportunities: UNC & Beyond
• Help at UNC
• Qualitative Software for Coding/Analysis
• Software for Audio, Video, Online Surveys
• Finding Qualitative Studies
• Assessing Qualitative Research
• Writing Up Your Research
• Integrating Qualitative Research into Systematic Reviews
• Publishing Qualitative Research

Presenting Qualitative Research, with a focus on posters

• Qualitative & Libraries: a few gems
• Data Repositories

Example posters

• The Meaning of Work for People with MS: a Qualitative Study A good example with quotes
• Fostering Empathy through Design Thinking Among Fourth Graders in Trinidad and Tobago Includes quotes, photos, diagrams, and other artifacts from qualitative study
• Examining the Use and Perception of Harm of JUULs by College Students: A Qualitative Study Another interesting example to consider
• NLM Informationist Supplement Grant: Daring to Dive into Documentation to Determine Impact An example from the Carolina Digital Repository discussed in a class more... less... Allegri, F., Hayes, B., & Renner, B. (2017). NLM Informationist Supplement Grant: Daring to Dive into Documentation to Determine Impact. https://doi.org/10.17615/bk34-p037
• Qualitative Posters in F1000 Research Archive (filtered on "qualitative" in title) Sample qualitative posters
• Qualitative Posters in F1000 Research Archive (filtered on "qualitative" in keywords) Sample qualitative posters

Michelle A. Krieger Blog (example, posts follow an APA convention poster experience with qualitative posters):

• Qualitative Data and Research Posters I
• Qualitative Data and Research Posters II

"Oldies but goodies":

• How to Visualize Qualitative Data: Ann K. Emery, September 25, 2014 Data Visualization / Chart Choosing, Color-Coding by Category, Diagrams, Icons, Photographs, Qualitative, Text, Timelines, Word Clouds more... less... Getting a little older, and a commercial site, but with some good ideas to get you think.
• Russell, C. K., Gregory, D. M., & Gates, M. F. (1996). Aesthetics and Substance in Qualitative Research Posters. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 542–552. Older article with much good information. Poster materials section less applicable.Link is for UNC-Chapel Hill affiliated users.

Additional resources

• CDC Coffee Break: Considerations for Presenting Qualitative Data (Mark D. Rivera, March 13, 2018) PDF download of slide presentation. Display formats section begins on slide 10.
• Print Book (Davis Library): Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd edition From Paul Mihas, Assistant Director of Education and Qualitative Research at the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science at UNC: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (4th ed.) by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana has a section on Displaying the Data (and a chapter on Designing Matrix, Network, and Graphic Displays) that can help students consider numerous options for visually synthesizing data and findings. Many of the suggestions can be applied to designing posters (April 15, 2021).
• << Previous: Publishing Qualitative Research
• Next: Qualitative & Libraries: a few gems >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/qual

Search & Find

• E-Research by Discipline
• More Search & Find

Places & Spaces

• Places to Study
• Book a Study Room
• Printers, Scanners, & Computers
• More Places & Spaces
• Borrowing & Circulation
• Request a Title for Purchase
• Schedule Instruction Session
• More Services

Support & Guides

• Course Reserves
• Research Guides
• Citing & Writing
• More Support & Guides
• Mission Statement
• Diversity Statement
• Staff Directory
• Job Opportunities
• Give to the Libraries
• News & Exhibits
• Reckoning Initiative
• More About Us

• Search This Site
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility
• Give Us Your Feedback
• 208 Raleigh Street CB #3916
• Chapel Hill, NC 27515-8890
• 919-962-1053

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 26 April 2008

Analysing and presenting qualitative data

• P. Burnard 1 ,
• P. Gill 2 ,
• K. Stewart 3 ,
• E. Treasure 4 &
• B. Chadwick 5  

British Dental Journal volume  204 ,  pages 429–432 ( 2008 ) Cite this article

356k Accesses

621 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Analysing and presenting qualitative data is one of the most confusing aspects of qualitative research.

This paper provides a pragmatic approach using a form of thematic content analysis. Approaches to presenting qualitative data are also discussed.

The process of qualitative data analysis is labour intensive and time consuming. Those who are unsure about this approach should seek appropriate advice.

This paper provides a pragmatic approach to analysing qualitative data, using actual data from a qualitative dental public health study for demonstration purposes. The paper also critically explores how computers can be used to facilitate this process, the debate about the verification (validation) of qualitative analyses and how to write up and present qualitative research studies.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions

Interviews in the social sciences

Development and validation of a new algorithm for improved cardiovascular risk prediction

Introduction.

Previous papers in this series have introduced readers to qualitative research and identified approaches to collecting qualitative data. However, for those new to this approach, one of the most bewildering aspects of qualitative research is, perhaps, how to analyse and present the data once it has been collected. This final paper therefore considers a method of analysing and presenting textual data gathered during qualitative work. boxed-text

Box 1: Qualitative research in dentistry

Qualitative research in dentistry

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

Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research

Approaches to analysing qualitative data

There are two fundamental approaches to analysing qualitative data (although each can be handled in a variety of different ways): the deductive approach and the inductive approach. 1 , 2 Deductive approaches involve using a structure or predetermined framework to analyse data. Essentially, the researcher imposes their own structure or theories on the data and then uses these to analyse the interview transcripts. 3

This approach is useful in studies where researchers are already aware of probable participant responses. For example, if a study explored patients' reasons for complaining about their dentist, the interview may explore common reasons for patients' complaints, such as trauma following treatment and communication problems. The data analysis would then consist of examining each interview to determine how many patients had complaints of each type and the extent to which complaints of each type co-occur. 3 However, while this approach is relatively quick and easy, it is inflexible and can potentially bias the whole analysis process as the coding framework has been decided in advance, which can severely limit theme and theory development.

Conversely, the inductive approach involves analysing data with little or no predetermined theory, structure or framework and uses the actual data itself to derive the structure of analysis. This approach is comprehensive and therefore time-consuming and is most suitable where little or nothing is known about the study phenomenon. Inductive analysis is the most common approach used to analyse qualitative data 2 and is, therefore, the focus of this paper.

Whilst a variety of inductive approaches to analysing qualitative data are available, the method of analysis described in this paper is that of thematic content analysis , and is, perhaps, the most common method of data analysis used in qualitative work. 4 , 5 This method arose out of the approach known as grounded theory, 6 although the method can be used in a range of other types of qualitative work, including ethnography and phenomenology (see the first paper in this series 7 for definitions). Indeed, the process of thematic content analysis is often very similar in all types of qualitative research, in that the process involves analysing transcripts, identifying themes within those data and gathering together examples of those themes from the text.

Data collection and data analysis

Interview transcripts, field notes and observations provide a descriptive account of the study, but they do not provide explanations. 4 It is the researcher who has to make sense of the data that have been collected by exploring and interpreting them.

Quantitative and qualitative research differ somewhat in their approach to data analysis. In quantitative research, data analysis often only occurs after all or much of data have been collected. However, in qualitative research, data analysis often begins during, or immediately after, the first data are collected, although this process continues and is modified throughout the study. Initial analysis of the data may also further inform subsequent data collection. For example, interview schedules may be slightly modified in light of emerging findings, where additional clarification may be required.

Computer software for data analysis

The method of analysis described in this paper involves managing the data 'by hand'. However, there are several computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) packages available that can be used to manage and help in the analysis of qualitative data. Common programmes include ATLAS. ti and NVivo. It should be noted, however, that such programs do not 'analyse' the data – that is the task of the researcher – they simply manage the data and make handling of them easier.

For example, computer packages can help to manage, sort and organise large volumes of qualitative data, store, annotate and retrieve text, locate words, phrases and segments of data, prepare diagrams and extract quotes. 8 However, whilst computer programmes can facilitate data analysis, making the process easier and, arguably, more flexible, accurate and comprehensive, they do not confirm or deny the scientific value or quality of qualitative research, as they are merely instruments, as good or as bad as the researcher using them.

Stages in the process

Regardless of whether data are analysed by hand or using computer software, the process of thematic content analysis is essentially the same, in that it involves identifying themes and categories that 'emerge from the data'. This involves discovering themes in the interview transcripts and attempting to verify, confirm and qualify them by searching through the data and repeating the process to identify further themes and categories. 4

In order to do this, once the interviews have been transcribed verbatim, the researcher reads each transcript and makes notes in the margins of words, theories or short phrases that sum up what is being said in the text. This is usually known as open coding. The aim, however, is to offer a summary statement or word for each element that is discussed in the transcript. The exception to this is when the respondent has clearly gone off track and begun to move away from the topic under discussion. Such deviations (as long as they really are deviations) can simply be uncoded. Such 'off the topic' material is sometimes known as 'dross'. 9

Table 1 is an example of the initial coding framework used in the data generated from an actual interview with a child in a qualitative dental public health study, exploring primary school children's understanding of food. 10

In the second stage, the researcher collects together all of the words and phrases from all of the interviews onto a clean set of pages. These can then be worked through and all duplications crossed out. This will have the effect of reducing the numbers of 'categories' quite considerably. 11 , 12 Using a section of the initial coding framework from the above study, 10 such a list of categories might read as follows:

Children's perception of food

Positive notions of food and their consequences

Negative notions of food and their consequences

Peer influence

Healthy/unhealthy foods

Effects of sweets and chocolates

Effects of 'junk food'

Food choices in school

Diet in childhood

Food preferences

Expected diet as a 'grown up'

Food choices and preferences of friendship groups

Effects of fizzy drinks

Perceptions of adult/child diets

The need to be 'healthy' as an adult.

Once this second, shorter list of categories has been compiled, the researcher goes a stage further and looks for overlapping or similar categories. Informed by the analytical and theoretical ideas developed during the research, these categories are further refined and reduced in number by grouping them together. 4 A list of several categories (perhaps up to a maximum of twelve) can then be compiled. If we consider the above example, we might eventually come up with the reduced list shown in Table 2 .

This reduced list forms the final category system that can be used to divide up all of the interviews. 12 The next stage is to allocate each of the categories its own coloured marking pen and then each transcript is worked through and data that fit under a particular category are marked with the according colour. Finally, all of the sections of data, under each of the categories (and thus assigned a particular colour) are cut out and pasted onto the A4 sheets. Subject dividers can then be labelled with each category label and the corresponding coloured snippets, on each of the pages, are filed in a lever arch file. What the researcher has achieved is an organised dataset, filed in one folder. It is from this folder that the report of the findings can be written.

As discussed earlier, computer programmes can be used to manage this process and may be particularly useful in qualitative studies with larger datasets. However, researchers wishing to use such software should first undertake appropriate training and should be aware that most programmes often do not abide by normal MS Windows conventions (eg, most interview transcripts have to be converted from MS Word into rich text format before they can be imported into the programme for analysis).

Verification

The analysis of qualitative data does, of course, involve interpreting the study findings. However, this process is arguably more subjective than the process normally associated with quantitative data analysis, since a common belief amongst social scientists is that a definitive, objective view of social reality does not exist. For example, some quantitative researchers claim that qualitative accounts cannot be held straightforwardly to represent the social world, thus different researchers may interpret the same data somewhat differently. 4 Consequently, this leads to the issue of the verifiability of qualitative data analysis.

There is, therefore, a debate as to whether qualitative researchers should have their analyses verified or validated by a third party. 13 , 14 It has been argued that this process can make the analysis more rigorous and reduce the element bias. There are two key ways of having data analyses validated by others: respondent validation (or member check) – returning to the study participants and asking them to validate analyses – and peer review (or peer debrief, also referred to as inter-rater reliability) – whereby another qualitative researcher analyses the data independently. 13 , 14 , 15

Participant validation involves returning to respondents and asking them to carefully read through their interview transcripts and/or data analysis for them to validate, or refute, the researcher's interpretation of the data. Whilst this can arguably help to refine theme and theory development, the process is hugely time consuming and, if it does not occur relatively soon after data collection and analysis, participants may have also changed their perceptions and views because of temporal effects and potential changes in their situation, health, and perhaps even as a result of participation in the study. 15

Some respondents may also want to modify their opinions on re-presentation of the data if they now feel that, on reflection, their original comments are not 'socially desirable'. There is also the problem of how to present such information to people who are likely to be non-academics. Furthermore, it is possible that some participants will not recognise some of the emerging theories, as each of them will probably have contributed only a portion of the data. 16

The process of peer review involves at least one other suitably experienced researcher independently reviewing and exploring interview transcripts, data analysis and emerging themes. It has been argued that this process may help to guard against the potential for lone researcher bias and help to provide additional insights into theme and theory development. 14 , 16 , 17 However, many researchers also feel that the value of this approach is questionable, since it is possible that each researcher may interpret the data, or parts of it, differently. 8 Also, if both perspectives are grounded in and supported by the data, is one interpretation necessarily stronger or more valid than the other?

Unfortunately, despite perpetual debate, there is no definitive answer to the issue of validity in qualitative analysis. However, to ensure that the analysis process is systematic and rigorous, the whole corpus of collected data must be thoroughly analysed. Therefore, where appropriate, this should also include the search for and identification of relevant 'deviant or contrary cases' – ie, findings that are different or contrary to the main findings, or are simply unique to some or even just one respondent. Qualitative researchers should also utilise a process of 'constant comparison' when analysing data. This essentially involves reading and re-reading data to search for and identify emerging themes in the constant search for understanding and the meaning of the data. 18 , 19 Where appropriate, researchers should also provide a detailed explication in published reports of how data was collected and analysed, as this helps the reader to critically assess the value of the study.

It should also be noted that qualitative data cannot be usefully quantified given the nature, composition and size of the sample group, and ultimately the epistemological aim of the methodology.

Writing and presenting qualitative research

There are two main approaches to writing up the findings of qualitative research. 20 The first is to simply report key findings under each main theme or category, using appropriate verbatim quotes to illustrate those findings. This is then accompanied by a linking, separate discussion chapter in which the findings are discussed in relation to existing research (as in quantitative studies). The second is to do the same but to incorporate the discussion into the findings chapter. Below are brief examples of the two approaches, using actual data from a qualitative dental public health study that explored primary school children's understanding of food. 10

Example a (the traditional approach):

Contrasts and contradictions

The interviews demonstrated that children are able to operate contrasts and contradictions about food effortlessly. These contradictions are both sophisticated and complex, incorporating positive and negative notions relating to food and its health and social consequences, which they are able to fluently adopt when talking about food:

'My mother says drink juice because it's healthy and she says if you don't drink it you won't get healthy and you won't have any sweets and you'll end up having to go to hospital if you don't eat anything like vegetables because you'll get weak' . (Girl, school 3, age 11 years).

If this approach was used, the findings chapter would subsequently be followed by a separate supporting discussion and conclusion section in which the findings would be critically discussed and compared to the appropriate existing research. As in quantitative research, these supporting chapters would also be used to develop theories or hypothesise about the data and, if appropriate, to make realistic conclusions and recommendations for practice and further research.

Example b (combined findings and discussion chapter):

Copying friends

In this study, as with others (eg Ludvigsen & Sharma 21 and Watt & Sheiham 22 ), peer influence is a strong factor, with children copying each other's food choices at school meal times:

Girl: 'They say “copy me and what I have.”'

Interviewer: 'And do you copy them if they say that?'

Girl: 'Yes.'

Interviewer: 'Why do you copy them if they say that?'

Girl: 'Because they are my friends.'

(Girl, school 1, age 7).

Children also identified friendship groups according to the school meal type they have. Children have been known to have school dinners, or packed lunches if their friends also have the same. 21

If this approach was used, the combined findings and discussion section would simply be followed by a concluding chapter. Further guidance on writing up qualitative reports can be found in the literature. 20

This paper has described a pragmatic process of thematic content analysis as a method of analysing qualitative data generated by interviews or focus groups. Other approaches to analysis are available and are discussed in the literature. 23 , 24 , 25 The method described here offers a method of generating categories under which similar themes or categories can be collated. The paper also briefly illustrates two different ways of presenting qualitative reports, having analysed the data.

This analysis process, when done properly, is systematic and rigorous and therefore labour-intensive and time consuming. 4 Consequently, for those undertaking this process for the first time, we recommend seeking advice from experienced qualitative researchers.

Spencer L, Ritchie J, O'Connor W . Analysis: practices, principles and processes. In Ritchie J, Lewis J (eds) Qualitative research practice . pp 199–218. London: Sage Publications, 2004.

Google Scholar  

Lathlean J . Qualitative analysis. In Gerrish K, Lacy A (eds) The research process in nursing . pp 417–433. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2006.

Williams C, Bower E J, Newton J T . Research in primary dental care part 6: data analysis. Br Dent J 2004; 197 : 67–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N . Analysing qualitative data. In Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative research in health care . 2nd ed. pp 75–88. London: BMJ Books, 1999.

Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W . Carrying out qualitative analysis. In Ritchie J, Lewis J (eds) Qualitative research practice . pp 219–262. London: Sage Publications, 2004.

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

Stewart K, Gill P, Chadwick B, Treasure E . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 235–239.

Seale C . Analysing your data. In Silverman D (ed) Doing qualitative research . pp 154–174. London: Sage Publications, 2000.

Morse J M, Field P . Nursing research: the application of qualitative approaches . Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes, 1996.

Book   Google Scholar  

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

Burnard P . A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Educ Today 1991; 11 : 461–466.

Burnard P . A pragmatic approach to qualitative data analysis. In Newell R, Burnard P (eds). Research for evidence based practice . pp 97–107. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Mays N, Pope C . Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995; 311 : 109–112.

Barbour R S . Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2001; 322 : 1115–1117.

Long T, Johnson M . Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eff Nurs 2000; 4 : 30–37.

Cutcliffe J R, McKenna H P . Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: the plot thickens. J Adv Nurs 1999; 30 : 374–380.

Andrews M, Lyne P, Riley E . Validity in qualitative health care research: an exploration of the impact of individual researcher perspectives within collaborative enquiry. J Adv Nurs 1996; 23 : 441–447.

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

Polit D F, Beck C T . Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisal, and utilization . 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006.

Burnard P . Writing a qualitative research report. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 24 : 174–179.

Ludvigsen A, Sharma N . Burger boy and sporty girl; children and young people's attitudes towards food in school . Barkingside: Barnardo's, 2004.

Watt R G, Sheiham A . Towards an understanding of young people's conceptualisation of food and eating. Health Educ J 1997; 56 : 340–349.

Bryman A, Burgess R (eds). Analysing qualitative data . London: Routledge, 1993.

Miles M, Huberman A . Qualitative data analysis . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1994.

Silverman D . Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Professor of Nursing, Cardiff School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Ty Dewi Sant, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY,

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

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

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

E. Treasure

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

B. Chadwick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Additional information

Refereed paper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K. et al. Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 204 , 429–432 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292

Download citation

Published : 26 April 2008

Issue Date : 26 April 2008

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Primary-school-aged children inspire their peers and families to eat more vegetables in the kiidsay project: a qualitative descriptive study.

• Karpouzis F.
• Lindberg R.

BMC Pediatrics (2024)

Nurse assistants’ perception of caring for older persons who are dying in their own home

• Magdalena Annersten Gershater
• Josefin Brenner

BMC Palliative Care (2024)

COVID-19 and Challenging Working Environments: Experiences of Black Sub-Saharan African (BSSA) Front-Line Health Care Professionals Amid of COVID-19 Pandemic in the English Midlands Region

• Nyashanu Mathew
• Pfende Farai
• Mandu Stephen Ekpenyong

Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (2024)

Ethical and Regulatory Gaps in Aesthetic Medical Practice in Top Asian Medical Tourism Destinations

• Nishakanthi Gopalan

Asian Bioethics Review (2024)

Subjective Experiences of Pregnancy, Delivery, and Nursing in Transgender Men and Non-Binary Individuals: A Qualitative Analysis of Gender and Mental Health Concerns

• Felicitas A. O. K. Falck
• Cecilia M. U. Dhejne
• Gabriela M. Armuand

Archives of Sexual Behavior (2024)

Quick links

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

How to Use Creative Data Visualization Techniques for Easy Comprehension of Qualitative Research

“A picture is worth a thousand words!”—an adage used so often stands true even whilst reporting your research data. Research studies with overwhelming data can perhaps be difficult to comprehend by some readers or can even be time-consuming. While presenting quantitative research data becomes easier with the help of graphs, pie charts, etc. researchers face an undeniable challenge whilst presenting qualitative research data. In this article, we will elaborate on effectively presenting qualitative research using data visualization techniques .

Table of Contents

What is Data Visualization?

Data visualization is the process of converting textual information into graphical and illustrative representations. It is imperative to think beyond numbers to get a holistic and comprehensive understanding of research data. Hence, this technique is adopted to help presenters communicate relevant research data in a way that’s easy for the viewer to interpret and draw conclusions.

What Is the Importance of Data Visualization in Qualitative Research?

According to the form in which the data is collected and expressed, it is broadly divided into qualitative data and quantitative data. Quantitative data expresses the size or quantity of data in a countable integer. Unlike quantitative data, qualitative data cannot be expressed in continuous integer values; it refers to data values ​​described in the non-numeric form related to subjects, places, things, events, activities, or concepts.

What Are the Advantages of Good Data Visualization Techniques?

Excellent data visualization techniques have several benefits:

• Human eyes are often drawn to patterns and colors. Moreover, in this age of Big Data , visualization can be considered an asset to quickly and easily comprehend large amounts of data generated in a research study.
• Enables viewers to recognize emerging trends and accelerate their response time on the basis of what is seen and assimilated.
• Illustrations make it easier to identify correlated parameters.
• Allows the presenter to narrate a story whilst helping the viewer understand the data and draw conclusions from it.
• As humans can process visual images better than texts, data visualization techniques enable viewers to remember them for a longer time.

Different Types of Data Visualization Techniques in Qualitative Research

Here are several data visualization techniques for presenting qualitative data for better comprehension of research data.

1. Word Clouds

• Word Clouds is a type of data visualization technique which helps in visualizing one-word descriptions.
• It is a single image composing multiple words associated with a particular text or subject.
• The size of each word indicates its importance or frequency in the data.
• Wordle and Tagxedo are two majorly used tools to create word clouds.

2. Graphic Timelines

• Graphic timelines are created to present regular text-based timelines with pictorial illustrations or diagrams, photos, and other images.
• It visually displays a series of events in chronological order on a timescale.
• Furthermore, showcasing timelines in a graphical manner makes it easier to understand critical milestones in a study.

3. Icons Beside Descriptions

• Rather than writing long descriptive paragraphs, including resembling icons beside brief and concise points enable quick and easy comprehension.

4. Heat Map

• Using a heat map as a data visualization technique better displays differences in data with color variations.
• The intensity and frequency of data is well addressed with the help of these color codes.
• However, a clear legend must be mentioned alongside the heat map to correctly interpret a heat map.
• Additionally, it also helps identify trends in data.

5. Mind Map

• A mind map helps explain concepts and ideas linked to a central idea.
• Allows visual structuring of ideas without overwhelming the viewer with large amounts of text.
• These can be used to present graphical abstracts

Do’s and Don’ts of Data Visualization Techniques

It perhaps is not easy to visualize qualitative data and make it recognizable and comprehensible to viewers at a glance. However, well-visualized qualitative data can be very useful in order to clearly convey the key points to readers and listeners in presentations.

Are you struggling with ways to display your qualitative data? Which data visualization techniques have you used before? Let us know about your experience in the comments section below!

nicely explained

None. And I want to use it from now.

Would it be ideal or suggested to use these techniques to display qualitative data in a thesis perhaps?

Using data visualization techniques in a qualitative research thesis can help convey your findings in a more engaging and comprehensible manner. Here’s a brief overview of how to incorporate data visualization in such a thesis:

Select Relevant Visualizations: Identify the types of data you have (e.g., textual, audio, visual) and the appropriate visualization techniques that can represent your qualitative data effectively. Common options include word clouds, charts, graphs, timelines, and thematic maps.

Data Preparation: Ensure your qualitative data is well-organized and coded appropriately. This might involve using qualitative analysis software like NVivo or Atlas.ti to tag and categorize data.

Create Visualizations: Generate visualizations that illustrate key themes, patterns, or trends within your qualitative data. For example: Word clouds can highlight frequently occurring terms or concepts. Bar charts or histograms can show the distribution of specific themes or categories. Timeline visualizations can help display chronological trends. Concept maps can illustrate the relationships between different concepts or ideas.

Integrate Visualizations into Your Thesis: Incorporate these visualizations within your thesis to complement your narrative. Place them strategically to support your arguments or findings. Include clear and concise captions and labels for each visualization, providing context and explaining their significance.

Interpretation: In the text of your thesis, interpret the visualizations. Explain what patterns or insights they reveal about your qualitative data. Offer meaningful insights and connections between the visuals and your research questions or hypotheses.

Maintain Consistency: Maintain a consistent style and formatting for your visualizations throughout the thesis. This ensures clarity and professionalism.

Ethical Considerations: If your qualitative research involves sensitive or personal data, consider ethical guidelines and privacy concerns when presenting visualizations. Anonymize or protect sensitive information as needed.

Review and Refinement: Before finalizing your thesis, review the visualizations for accuracy and clarity. Seek feedback from peers or advisors to ensure they effectively convey your qualitative findings.

Appendices: If you have a large number of visualizations or detailed data, consider placing some in appendices. This keeps the main body of your thesis uncluttered while providing interested readers with supplementary information.

Cite Sources: If you use specific software or tools to create your visualizations, acknowledge and cite them appropriately in your thesis.

Hope you find this helpful. Happy Learning!

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Research Interviews: An effective and insightful way of data collection

Research interviews play a pivotal role in collecting data for various academic, scientific, and professional…

Planning Your Data Collection: Designing methods for effective research

Planning your research is very important to obtain desirable results. In research, the relevance of…

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

Qualitative Vs. Quantitative Research — A step-wise guide to conduct research

A research study includes the collection and analysis of data. In quantitative research, the data…

Explanatory & Response Variable in Statistics — A quick guide for early career researchers!

Often researchers have a difficult time choosing the parameters and variables (like explanatory and response…

6 Steps to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Statistical Hypothesis Testing

You know what is tragic? Having the potential to complete the research study but not…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

The UK Faculty of Public Health has recently taken ownership of the Health Knowledge resource. This new, advert-free website is still under development and there may be some issues accessing content. Additionally, the content has not been audited or verified by the Faculty of Public Health as part of an ongoing quality assurance process and as such certain material included maybe out of date. If you have any concerns regarding content you should seek to independently verify this.

Use, analysis and presentation of qualitative data

The uses of qualitative data are broad and varied and have been discussed throughout the chapter. Qualitative findings may be published in peer reviewed journals, in non-peer reviewed journals, and in reports for funders and decision-makers. However, the raw data obtained from interviews and focus groups (transcripts of what was said), and observations (field notes on what was observed by the researcher) must first be analysed.

General considerations

No general consensus exists amongst qualitative researchers concerning the process of data analysis. Rather, there are a variety of approaches to analysis and interpretation. These reflect the particular theoretical perspectives or field within which the researcher is working. It could be argued that this is another way in which qualitative research methods significantly differ from quantitative approaches. In the latter, there exists really only one route from data to conclusions, and this is statistical analysis, although there are different statistical approaches available, depending upon the size, distribution, and type of data.

In contrast, the methods available for qualitative analysis vary considerably. However, many of the qualitative methods textbooks do attempt to identify some general features that are common to the analytical phase of qualitative research; these include the following:

• Some form of review of all the information to gain an initial sense of the data, these ideas might then be fed back to the informants for verification purposes.
• The process of organising the data into some manageable form. This is often described as 'reducing the data', and usually involves developing codes or categories. However, as will be argued below, this process can be potentially problematic if the desire of the researcher is to maintain the unique richness of qualitative forms of data.
• Interpreting the data
• Presenting it in some form, e.g. tables, prose, or diagrams.

Having identified these broad stages, it should nevertheless be stated that the process of qualitative analysis is not a linear but rather continuous and iterative (12). That is, an emergent analytical process which moves backwards and forwards from the data to analytical concepts, refining and synthesising the latter as more data becomes available. As has been consistently asserted above, the theoretical approach that informs a piece of qualitative research will essentially determine the process by which the data is to be analysed.

Most qualitative analysis involves induction, that is, interpreting the data in order to derive some theoretical framework or working hypothesis, proposition, or `essence' of the social processes under investigation. Findings are inducted from the data, to generate a theory from the concepts inherent within the data.

It is possible to use a deductive approach with qualitative data: for example, if one charts the frequency with which concept appears within the data as a means of summarising the content, or if a framework approach is used to organise each line of text. Such approaches are often called simple content analysis and may be used when analysing free-text entries in questionnaires, for example. It may be argued however that deductive approaches do not maximise the value available from qualitative data and that inductive approaches are more likely to reveal new theories and progress understanding about the field.

Steps in analysis

1)     managing data: the process of indexing/coding/labelling the data.

The process of coding is an essential first step in managing the analytical process. During coding, elements of the data that are conceived of as sharing some perceived commonality are indexed and linked. Codes can be used to simplify or reduce transcript data to manageable levels, the purpose being to achieve a simple conceptual schema. This process usually involves the exclusive index coding of segments of data text (“line by line coding”) in order to be able to eventually retrieve segments sharing a common code. Alternatively, coding can be used as a method to open up the data, thus enabling the researcher to think or conceptualise beyond the data itself. This allows for more in-depth analysis. The in-depth analysis can be undertaken in several ways.

2)     Main Approaches to Analysing Qualitative Data

In this section three main approaches to qualitative data analysis are discussed. In practice, qualitative researchers may incorporate elements of grounded theory, constant-comparison approaches, and even analytical induction elements when analysing the data. Moreover, there are additional approaches to analysing data that are not discussed here, such as interpretive phenomenological, narrative, and discourse analysis.

Thematic analysis

This method involves the identification and reporting of patterns – called themes – which are retrieved from the primary qualitative data. Thematic analysis has been described as an accessible form of qualitative analysis as it does not require development of theory (see “grounded theory” below for contrast). A “step by step” guide to undertaking thematic analysis can be found in a paper by Braun and Clarke (13).

This approach to analysis has been developed over time by the National Centre for Social Research (12). The term 'framework' derives from the 'thematic framework' which is the central component of this approach to data management and interpretative analysis. The thematic framework is utilised to classify and organise data according to key themes, concepts and emergent categories. Each research study requires its own distinctive thematic framework comprising of a series of main themes, subdivided by a succession of related sub-themes or topics. These categories evolve and are refined (as an iterative process) through the researcher's familiarisation with the raw data and the subsequent cross-sectional labelling. Once the researcher judges that they have a comprehensive list of main and sub-themes, each is then 'charted' or displayed in its own matrix. The response of each research subject is then allocated a row with each column representing a separate subtopic. The final stage of this data management component of 'framework' involves summarising or synthesising the original data from each case (subject) within the appropriate parts of the thematic framework. Gale et al. describe the steps involved when taking a Framework approach (14).

Analytical Induction (AI)

In analytical induction (AI) or `deviant case analysis', each section of the transcript (in the case of interviews or focus group discussions) or notes of an observation is not assigned a single code in a 'final and arbitrary interpretative act' but is merely the first stage in the process of analysis (15). Initially these codes will be generalised but they become progressively more elaborate as more data are examined. Once coding is completed, systematic comparisons are made within and between the labelled transcript data. In AI, generalisability of the final conclusions is achieved by focusing on the `deviant' or contradictory indexed items that emerge at this stage. An attempt is made to modify the initial analytical themes in order to embrace these deviant cases. This procedure is essential to guard against selective attention to data in order to provide a more systematic means of extending analytic thinking. There are clear merits to this deviant case approach applied to interview data analysis, particularly in its drawing attention to the importance of contradictions as being indicative of an important dynamic at work rather than some aberrant occurrence or utterance that cannot be fitted into a code.

Grounded theory

In grounded theory, a set of ideas (the “theory”) is generated from the concepts and constructs retrieved from the coding stages. However, the theory remains grounded in the data, and is obtained from analysis of the codes and “memos” noted during the coding process, which come together to create an overall theory explaining the phenomenon under investigation.

Constant-comparative approach

This is a method often employed as part of grounded theory and involves comparing newly acquired data with the dataset already collected. In this way, each new “unit” of data (e.g. a new interview transcript) is considered in terms of how it changes the developing theory and what it adds to the emerging theory. By using constant-comparative methods it is possible to identify when theoretical saturation is reached as the additional data add little to the established findings. The simultaneous collection of data and analysis is an important feature of qualitative research and its iterative nature therefore allows the researcher to optimise the selection of participants based on features that may be of interested given the emerging findings.

Presentation

The challenges faced in qualitative research reporting do differ somewhat from those faced by quantitative researchers, and this primarily relates to the different forms of data that are being analysed and the interpretative approach to analysis. This requires the following concerns to be addressed in the final report:

• A discussion in the report of the potential transferability of the qualitative findings to other settings.
• There needs to be a discussion of the methods utilised and the reasons why they were appropriate to the object under investigation.
• It needs to be demonstrated that the conclusions drawn within the study are consistent with the evidence. The interpretative analysis needs to be presented in a transparent way so that the reader can follow the processes leading to the conclusions.
• Presenting the depth and richness of qualitative data is a challenge as they cannot be set-out in a neat series of graphs as would be typically found within quantitative research reports. Nevertheless, the imaginative use of diagrams and other schematics to illustrate the analytical process and findings can be a very useful way of simplifying the complexity of the iterative process of the gradual refinement of analytical categories.
• Qualitative methods are used precisely because of their potential to investigate and explain complex and diverse social phenomena, and therefore a report or presentation which focuses only on one element of the findings will be misleading. Any apparent contradictions or inconsistencies that emerged need to be reported upon in as much detail as the recurrent themes found within the study.
• Including verbatim quotes from the research subjects is a very useful way of illustrating the main themes that emerged from the study and in demonstrating the reliability of the conclusions. However, this can be overdone, resulting in an overlong narrative which distracts from the main findings.

Moreover, guidelines for best practice in reporting qualitative research have been produced (16).

© I Crinson & M Leontowitsch 2006, G Morgan 2016

No products in the cart.

Preparing the presentation of qualitative findings: considering your roles and goals

Dr. Philip Adu is a Methodology Expert at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology (TCSPP). In this post he explains the things to consider when presenting your research findings.

This post follows on from his previous blog post “Perfecting the art of qualitative coding” in which he took us through the stages of qualitative coding and, along the way, outlined the features he found most useful.

In my previous blog post, I presented on making good use of the innovative features of NVivo across the three main stages of qualitative analysis. Expounding on the third stage which is the ‘ Post-Coding stage (Presenting your findings) ’, I want to throw light on things to consider when drafting and refining your presentation. The moment you reach a milestone of successfully using NVivo 12 (Version 12.1.249; QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018) to complete the data analysis process, the reality of preparing all of this data so you can present your findings sets in (Adu, 2016). Your methodical review of the qualitative data and development of codes, categories and themes has yielded massive and interesting NVivo outputs. The outcomes include but are not limited to; codes/nodes, categories/themes, Word Clouds, Word Tree, Framework Matrices, Cluster Tree, code-case matrices, and code-attribute matrices (see Figure 1). These findings need to be carefully examined – selecting the ones that will be useful in drafting a meaningful presentation. You can watch the presentation I developed below:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEyGGFtVQFw

Note, not all of this information (i.e. the outcomes) needs to be presented to your audience (see Adu, 2019 ). Other questions that may arise as you develop your presentation include; what kind of results should you present? How do you engage with your audience when presenting your findings? How would you help your audience to understand and believe your findings?

In this post, I will discuss the three pertinent components a good presentation of qualitative findings should have. They are; background information, data analysis process and main findings.

Figure 1. Presentation of findings

Presenting background information

Participants’ past and current situations influence the information they provide to you. Due to this, there is the need to provide readers a summary of who participants are and any background information which may help them to put the findings into the proper context. Also, as a researcher analyzing qualitative data, there is the likelihood of your own background impacting the data analysis process. In the same way, you need to let readers know who you are, what your background is and how you ‘bracketed’ them from not having an effect on the findings ( Adu, 2019 ).

Presenting the data analysis process

Qualitative analysis doesn’t only involve engaging in subjective development of codes and categories, but also promoting transparency in the coding and categorization process (Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2014). Due to this, you are expected to describe the main and detailed steps you took to analyze your data to arrive at your findings and their respective outcomes. Addressing the following questions would be great:

• What coding strategy did you use?
• What kinds of codes did you assign to relevant excerpts of the data?
• What are the examples of codes you generated?
• What categorization technique did you use?
• How did you develop categories/themes out of the codes?

Your audience’s aim is not only consuming what you found but also learning more about how you came up with the results.

Presenting main findings

When it comes to the presentation of findings, there are two main structures you could choose from. You could present them based on the themes generated or based on the cases (participants or groups of participants) you have. The decision to either structure depends on the kind of research question(s) or the research purpose you have. For a detailed explanation of the types of presentation formats and how to select an appropriate structure, see Chapter 13 of the book, “ A Step-by-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding ”.

Considering your roles and goals

As you plan on how to communicate the above components, make sure you accomplish your goals and carry out your role as a communicator of qualitative data analysis outcomes (See Figure 1). Your roles are; to thoughtfully arrange the data analysis outcomes and to adequately address your research questions.

Liken the presentation of your findings to sharing a puzzle which has been solved. Your goal is to prevent a situation where the burden is put on the audience to piece together the puzzle of findings. In other words, you are expected to present the findings in a meaningful way that would enhance the audience’s understanding of the data analysis outcomes (Adu, 2016 & 2019). By so doing, they are more likely to trust what you found.

Let’s summarize the action items:

• Out of a pool of qualitative analysis outcomes, select the ones that would allow you to address your research questions and meaningfully communicate your findings.
• Decide on how you want to structure the presentation of the findings.
• Irrespective of the presentation format you choose, make sure you include background information, the data analysis process and main findings in your presentation.
• Make sure you are ‘narrating’ participants’ stories or what you found – making the numeric outputs include the tables and charts generated play a supporting role when presenting the main findings.

Adu, P. (2016). Presenting Qualitative Findings Using NVivo Output to Tell the Story. [PowerPoint slides]. SlideShare. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/kontorphilip/presenting-qualitative-findings-using-nvivo-output-to-tell-the-story

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo 12. Version 12.1.249 [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software

Adu, P. (2019). A Step-by-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding . Oxford: Routledge

Greckhamer, T., & Cilesiz, S. (2014). Rigor, Transparency, Evidence, and Representation in Discourse Analysis: Challenges and Recommendations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 422-443. doi:10.1177/160940691401300123

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Philip Adu is a Methodology Expert at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology (TCSPP). His role is to provide support to dissertating students in TCSPP addressing their methodology related concerns. You could access some of his webinars at the ‘Methodology Related Presentations – TCSPP’ YouTube Channel. He completed his Doctoral degree in Education with a concentration in Learning, Instructional Design and Technology from West Virginia University (WVU). Dr. Adu recently authored a book titled, “A Step-by-Step Guide to Qualitative Data Coding” (available on routledge.com or amazon.com ). You could reach Dr. Adu at [email protected] and @drphilipadu on twitter.

Recent Articles

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.

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 .

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 ].

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 .

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

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations, 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 1. Introduction

“Science is in danger, and for that reason it is becoming dangerous” -Pierre Bourdieu, Science of Science and Reflexivity

Why an Open Access Textbook on Qualitative Research Methods?

I have been teaching qualitative research methods to both undergraduates and graduate students for many years.  Although there are some excellent textbooks out there, they are often costly, and none of them, to my mind, properly introduces qualitative research methods to the beginning student (whether undergraduate or graduate student).  In contrast, this open-access textbook is designed as a (free) true introduction to the subject, with helpful, practical pointers on how to conduct research and how to access more advanced instruction.  

Textbooks are typically arranged in one of two ways: (1) by technique (each chapter covers one method used in qualitative research); or (2) by process (chapters advance from research design through publication).  But both of these approaches are necessary for the beginner student.  This textbook will have sections dedicated to the process as well as the techniques of qualitative research.  This is a true “comprehensive” book for the beginning student.  In addition to covering techniques of data collection and data analysis, it provides a road map of how to get started and how to keep going and where to go for advanced instruction.  It covers aspects of research design and research communication as well as methods employed.  Along the way, it includes examples from many different disciplines in the social sciences.

The primary goal has been to create a useful, accessible, engaging textbook for use across many disciplines.  And, let’s face it.  Textbooks can be boring.  I hope readers find this to be a little different.  I have tried to write in a practical and forthright manner, with many lively examples and references to good and intellectually creative qualitative research.  Woven throughout the text are short textual asides (in colored textboxes) by professional (academic) qualitative researchers in various disciplines.  These short accounts by practitioners should help inspire students.  So, let’s begin!

What is Research?

When we use the word research , what exactly do we mean by that?  This is one of those words that everyone thinks they understand, but it is worth beginning this textbook with a short explanation.  We use the term to refer to “empirical research,” which is actually a historically specific approach to understanding the world around us.  Think about how you know things about the world. [1] You might know your mother loves you because she’s told you she does.  Or because that is what “mothers” do by tradition.  Or you might know because you’ve looked for evidence that she does, like taking care of you when you are sick or reading to you in bed or working two jobs so you can have the things you need to do OK in life.  Maybe it seems churlish to look for evidence; you just take it “on faith” that you are loved.

Only one of the above comes close to what we mean by research.  Empirical research is research (investigation) based on evidence.  Conclusions can then be drawn from observable data.  This observable data can also be “tested” or checked.  If the data cannot be tested, that is a good indication that we are not doing research.  Note that we can never “prove” conclusively, through observable data, that our mothers love us.  We might have some “disconfirming evidence” (that time she didn’t show up to your graduation, for example) that could push you to question an original hypothesis , but no amount of “confirming evidence” will ever allow us to say with 100% certainty, “my mother loves me.”  Faith and tradition and authority work differently.  Our knowledge can be 100% certain using each of those alternative methods of knowledge, but our certainty in those cases will not be based on facts or evidence.

For many periods of history, those in power have been nervous about “science” because it uses evidence and facts as the primary source of understanding the world, and facts can be at odds with what power or authority or tradition want you to believe.  That is why I say that scientific empirical research is a historically specific approach to understand the world.  You are in college or university now partly to learn how to engage in this historically specific approach.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, there was a newfound respect for empirical research, some of which was seriously challenging to the established church.  Using observations and testing them, scientists found that the earth was not at the center of the universe, for example, but rather that it was but one planet of many which circled the sun. [2]   For the next two centuries, the science of astronomy, physics, biology, and chemistry emerged and became disciplines taught in universities.  All used the scientific method of observation and testing to advance knowledge.  Knowledge about people , however, and social institutions, however, was still left to faith, tradition, and authority.  Historians and philosophers and poets wrote about the human condition, but none of them used research to do so. [3]

It was not until the nineteenth century that “social science” really emerged, using the scientific method (empirical observation) to understand people and social institutions.  New fields of sociology, economics, political science, and anthropology emerged.  The first sociologists, people like Auguste Comte and Karl Marx, sought specifically to apply the scientific method of research to understand society, Engels famously claiming that Marx had done for the social world what Darwin did for the natural world, tracings its laws of development.  Today we tend to take for granted the naturalness of science here, but it is actually a pretty recent and radical development.

To return to the question, “does your mother love you?”  Well, this is actually not really how a researcher would frame the question, as it is too specific to your case.  It doesn’t tell us much about the world at large, even if it does tell us something about you and your relationship with your mother.  A social science researcher might ask, “do mothers love their children?”  Or maybe they would be more interested in how this loving relationship might change over time (e.g., “do mothers love their children more now than they did in the 18th century when so many children died before reaching adulthood?”) or perhaps they might be interested in measuring quality of love across cultures or time periods, or even establishing “what love looks like” using the mother/child relationship as a site of exploration.  All of these make good research questions because we can use observable data to answer them.

What is Qualitative Research?

“All we know is how to learn. How to study, how to listen, how to talk, how to tell.  If we don’t tell the world, we don’t know the world.  We’re lost in it, we die.” -Ursula LeGuin, The Telling

At its simplest, qualitative research is research about the social world that does not use numbers in its analyses.  All those who fear statistics can breathe a sigh of relief – there are no mathematical formulae or regression models in this book! But this definition is less about what qualitative research can be and more about what it is not.  To be honest, any simple statement will fail to capture the power and depth of qualitative research.  One way of contrasting qualitative research to quantitative research is to note that the focus of qualitative research is less about explaining and predicting relationships between variables and more about understanding the social world.  To use our mother love example, the question about “what love looks like” is a good question for the qualitative researcher while all questions measuring love or comparing incidences of love (both of which require measurement) are good questions for quantitative researchers. Patton writes,

Qualitative data describe.  They take us, as readers, into the time and place of the observation so that we know what it was like to have been there.  They capture and communicate someone else’s experience of the world in his or her own words.  Qualitative data tell a story. ( Patton 2002:47 )

Qualitative researchers are asking different questions about the world than their quantitative colleagues.  Even when researchers are employed in “mixed methods” research ( both quantitative and qualitative), they are using different methods to address different questions of the study.  I do a lot of research about first-generation and working-college college students.  Where a quantitative researcher might ask, how many first-generation college students graduate from college within four years? Or does first-generation college status predict high student debt loads?  A qualitative researcher might ask, how does the college experience differ for first-generation college students?  What is it like to carry a lot of debt, and how does this impact the ability to complete college on time?  Both sets of questions are important, but they can only be answered using specific tools tailored to those questions.  For the former, you need large numbers to make adequate comparisons.  For the latter, you need to talk to people, find out what they are thinking and feeling, and try to inhabit their shoes for a little while so you can make sense of their experiences and beliefs.

Examples of Qualitative Research

You have probably seen examples of qualitative research before, but you might not have paid particular attention to how they were produced or realized that the accounts you were reading were the result of hours, months, even years of research “in the field.”  A good qualitative researcher will present the product of their hours of work in such a way that it seems natural, even obvious, to the reader.  Because we are trying to convey what it is like answers, qualitative research is often presented as stories – stories about how people live their lives, go to work, raise their children, interact with one another.  In some ways, this can seem like reading particularly insightful novels.  But, unlike novels, there are very specific rules and guidelines that qualitative researchers follow to ensure that the “story” they are telling is accurate , a truthful rendition of what life is like for the people being studied.  Most of this textbook will be spent conveying those rules and guidelines.  Let’s take a look, first, however, at three examples of what the end product looks like.  I have chosen these three examples to showcase very different approaches to qualitative research, and I will return to these five examples throughout the book.  They were all published as whole books (not chapters or articles), and they are worth the long read, if you have the time.  I will also provide some information on how these books came to be and the length of time it takes to get them into book version.  It is important you know about this process, and the rest of this textbook will help explain why it takes so long to conduct good qualitative research!

Example 1 : The End Game (ethnography + interviews)

Corey Abramson is a sociologist who teaches at the University of Arizona.   In 2015 he published The End Game: How Inequality Shapes our Final Years ( 2015 ). This book was based on the research he did for his dissertation at the University of California-Berkeley in 2012.  Actually, the dissertation was completed in 2012 but the work that was produced that took several years.  The dissertation was entitled, “This is How We Live, This is How We Die: Social Stratification, Aging, and Health in Urban America” ( 2012 ).  You can see how the book version, which was written for a more general audience, has a more engaging sound to it, but that the dissertation version, which is what academic faculty read and evaluate, has a more descriptive title.  You can read the title and know that this is a study about aging and health and that the focus is going to be inequality and that the context (place) is going to be “urban America.”  It’s a study about “how” people do something – in this case, how they deal with aging and death.  This is the very first sentence of the dissertation, “From our first breath in the hospital to the day we die, we live in a society characterized by unequal opportunities for maintaining health and taking care of ourselves when ill.  These disparities reflect persistent racial, socio-economic, and gender-based inequalities and contribute to their persistence over time” ( 1 ).  What follows is a truthful account of how that is so.

Cory Abramson spent three years conducting his research in four different urban neighborhoods.  We call the type of research he conducted “comparative ethnographic” because he designed his study to compare groups of seniors as they went about their everyday business.  It’s comparative because he is comparing different groups (based on race, class, gender) and ethnographic because he is studying the culture/way of life of a group. [4]   He had an educated guess, rooted in what previous research had shown and what social theory would suggest, that people’s experiences of aging differ by race, class, and gender.  So, he set up a research design that would allow him to observe differences.  He chose two primarily middle-class (one was racially diverse and the other was predominantly White) and two primarily poor neighborhoods (one was racially diverse and the other was predominantly African American).  He hung out in senior centers and other places seniors congregated, watched them as they took the bus to get prescriptions filled, sat in doctor’s offices with them, and listened to their conversations with each other.  He also conducted more formal conversations, what we call in-depth interviews, with sixty seniors from each of the four neighborhoods.  As with a lot of fieldwork , as he got closer to the people involved, he both expanded and deepened his reach –

By the end of the project, I expanded my pool of general observations to include various settings frequented by seniors: apartment building common rooms, doctors’ offices, emergency rooms, pharmacies, senior centers, bars, parks, corner stores, shopping centers, pool halls, hair salons, coffee shops, and discount stores. Over the course of the three years of fieldwork, I observed hundreds of elders, and developed close relationships with a number of them. ( 2012:10 )

When Abramson rewrote the dissertation for a general audience and published his book in 2015, it got a lot of attention.  It is a beautifully written book and it provided insight into a common human experience that we surprisingly know very little about.  It won the Outstanding Publication Award by the American Sociological Association Section on Aging and the Life Course and was featured in the New York Times .  The book was about aging, and specifically how inequality shapes the aging process, but it was also about much more than that.  It helped show how inequality affects people’s everyday lives.  For example, by observing the difficulties the poor had in setting up appointments and getting to them using public transportation and then being made to wait to see a doctor, sometimes in standing-room-only situations, when they are unwell, and then being treated dismissively by hospital staff, Abramson allowed readers to feel the material reality of being poor in the US.  Comparing these examples with seniors with adequate supplemental insurance who have the resources to hire car services or have others assist them in arranging care when they need it, jolts the reader to understand and appreciate the difference money makes in the lives and circumstances of us all, and in a way that is different than simply reading a statistic (“80% of the poor do not keep regular doctor’s appointments”) does.  Qualitative research can reach into spaces and places that often go unexamined and then reports back to the rest of us what it is like in those spaces and places.

Example 2: Racing for Innocence (Interviews + Content Analysis + Fictional Stories)

Jennifer Pierce is a Professor of American Studies at the University of Minnesota.  Trained as a sociologist, she has written a number of books about gender, race, and power.  Her very first book, Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms, published in 1995, is a brilliant look at gender dynamics within two law firms.  Pierce was a participant observer, working as a paralegal, and she observed how female lawyers and female paralegals struggled to obtain parity with their male colleagues.

Fifteen years later, she reexamined the context of the law firm to include an examination of racial dynamics, particularly how elite white men working in these spaces created and maintained a culture that made it difficult for both female attorneys and attorneys of color to thrive. Her book, Racing for Innocence: Whiteness, Gender, and the Backlash Against Affirmative Action , published in 2012, is an interesting and creative blending of interviews with attorneys, content analyses of popular films during this period, and fictional accounts of racial discrimination and sexual harassment.  The law firm she chose to study had come under an affirmative action order and was in the process of implementing equitable policies and programs.  She wanted to understand how recipients of white privilege (the elite white male attorneys) come to deny the role they play in reproducing inequality.  Through interviews with attorneys who were present both before and during the affirmative action order, she creates a historical record of the “bad behavior” that necessitated new policies and procedures, but also, and more importantly , probed the participants ’ understanding of this behavior.  It should come as no surprise that most (but not all) of the white male attorneys saw little need for change, and that almost everyone else had accounts that were different if not sometimes downright harrowing.

I’ve used Pierce’s book in my qualitative research methods courses as an example of an interesting blend of techniques and presentation styles.  My students often have a very difficult time with the fictional accounts she includes.  But they serve an important communicative purpose here.  They are her attempts at presenting “both sides” to an objective reality – something happens (Pierce writes this something so it is very clear what it is), and the two participants to the thing that happened have very different understandings of what this means.  By including these stories, Pierce presents one of her key findings – people remember things differently and these different memories tend to support their own ideological positions.  I wonder what Pierce would have written had she studied the murder of George Floyd or the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 or any number of other historic events whose observers and participants record very different happenings.

This is not to say that qualitative researchers write fictional accounts.  In fact, the use of fiction in our work remains controversial.  When used, it must be clearly identified as a presentation device, as Pierce did.  I include Racing for Innocence here as an example of the multiple uses of methods and techniques and the way that these work together to produce better understandings by us, the readers, of what Pierce studied.  We readers come away with a better grasp of how and why advantaged people understate their own involvement in situations and structures that advantage them.  This is normal human behavior , in other words.  This case may have been about elite white men in law firms, but the general insights here can be transposed to other settings.  Indeed, Pierce argues that more research needs to be done about the role elites play in the reproduction of inequality in the workplace in general.

Example 3: Amplified Advantage (Mixed Methods: Survey Interviews + Focus Groups + Archives)

The final example comes from my own work with college students, particularly the ways in which class background affects the experience of college and outcomes for graduates.  I include it here as an example of mixed methods, and for the use of supplementary archival research.  I’ve done a lot of research over the years on first-generation, low-income, and working-class college students.  I am curious (and skeptical) about the possibility of social mobility today, particularly with the rising cost of college and growing inequality in general.  As one of the few people in my family to go to college, I didn’t grow up with a lot of examples of what college was like or how to make the most of it.  And when I entered graduate school, I realized with dismay that there were very few people like me there.  I worried about becoming too different from my family and friends back home.  And I wasn’t at all sure that I would ever be able to pay back the huge load of debt I was taking on.  And so I wrote my dissertation and first two books about working-class college students.  These books focused on experiences in college and the difficulties of navigating between family and school ( Hurst 2010a, 2012 ).  But even after all that research, I kept coming back to wondering if working-class students who made it through college had an equal chance at finding good jobs and happy lives,

What happens to students after college?  Do working-class students fare as well as their peers?  I knew from my own experience that barriers continued through graduate school and beyond, and that my debtload was higher than that of my peers, constraining some of the choices I made when I graduated.  To answer these questions, I designed a study of students attending small liberal arts colleges, the type of college that tried to equalize the experience of students by requiring all students to live on campus and offering small classes with lots of interaction with faculty.  These private colleges tend to have more money and resources so they can provide financial aid to low-income students.  They also attract some very wealthy students.  Because they enroll students across the class spectrum, I would be able to draw comparisons.  I ended up spending about four years collecting data, both a survey of more than 2000 students (which formed the basis for quantitative analyses) and qualitative data collection (interviews, focus groups, archival research, and participant observation).  This is what we call a “mixed methods” approach because we use both quantitative and qualitative data.  The survey gave me a large enough number of students that I could make comparisons of the how many kind, and to be able to say with some authority that there were in fact significant differences in experience and outcome by class (e.g., wealthier students earned more money and had little debt; working-class students often found jobs that were not in their chosen careers and were very affected by debt, upper-middle-class students were more likely to go to graduate school).  But the survey analyses could not explain why these differences existed.  For that, I needed to talk to people and ask them about their motivations and aspirations.  I needed to understand their perceptions of the world, and it is very hard to do this through a survey.

By interviewing students and recent graduates, I was able to discern particular patterns and pathways through college and beyond.  Specifically, I identified three versions of gameplay.  Upper-middle-class students, whose parents were themselves professionals (academics, lawyers, managers of non-profits), saw college as the first stage of their education and took classes and declared majors that would prepare them for graduate school.  They also spent a lot of time building their resumes, taking advantage of opportunities to help professors with their research, or study abroad.  This helped them gain admission to highly-ranked graduate schools and interesting jobs in the public sector.  In contrast, upper-class students, whose parents were wealthy and more likely to be engaged in business (as CEOs or other high-level directors), prioritized building social capital.  They did this by joining fraternities and sororities and playing club sports.  This helped them when they graduated as they called on friends and parents of friends to find them well-paying jobs.  Finally, low-income, first-generation, and working-class students were often adrift.  They took the classes that were recommended to them but without the knowledge of how to connect them to life beyond college.  They spent time working and studying rather than partying or building their resumes.  All three sets of students thought they were “doing college” the right way, the way that one was supposed to do college.   But these three versions of gameplay led to distinct outcomes that advantaged some students over others.  I titled my work “Amplified Advantage” to highlight this process.

These three examples, Cory Abramson’s The End Game , Jennifer Peirce’s Racing for Innocence, and my own Amplified Advantage, demonstrate the range of approaches and tools available to the qualitative researcher.  They also help explain why qualitative research is so important.  Numbers can tell us some things about the world, but they cannot get at the hearts and minds, motivations and beliefs of the people who make up the social worlds we inhabit.  For that, we need tools that allow us to listen and make sense of what people tell us and show us.  That is what good qualitative research offers us.

How Is This Book Organized?

This textbook is organized as a comprehensive introduction to the use of qualitative research methods.  The first half covers general topics (e.g., approaches to qualitative research, ethics) and research design (necessary steps for building a successful qualitative research study).  The second half reviews various data collection and data analysis techniques.  Of course, building a successful qualitative research study requires some knowledge of data collection and data analysis so the chapters in the first half and the chapters in the second half should be read in conversation with each other.  That said, each chapter can be read on its own for assistance with a particular narrow topic.  In addition to the chapters, a helpful glossary can be found in the back of the book.  Rummage around in the text as needed.

Chapter Descriptions

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Research Design Process.  How does one begin a study? What is an appropriate research question?  How is the study to be done – with what methods ?  Involving what people and sites?  Although qualitative research studies can and often do change and develop over the course of data collection, it is important to have a good idea of what the aims and goals of your study are at the outset and a good plan of how to achieve those aims and goals.  Chapter 2 provides a road map of the process.

Chapter 3 describes and explains various ways of knowing the (social) world.  What is it possible for us to know about how other people think or why they behave the way they do?  What does it mean to say something is a “fact” or that it is “well-known” and understood?  Qualitative researchers are particularly interested in these questions because of the types of research questions we are interested in answering (the how questions rather than the how many questions of quantitative research).  Qualitative researchers have adopted various epistemological approaches.  Chapter 3 will explore these approaches, highlighting interpretivist approaches that acknowledge the subjective aspect of reality – in other words, reality and knowledge are not objective but rather influenced by (interpreted through) people.

Chapter 4 focuses on the practical matter of developing a research question and finding the right approach to data collection.  In any given study (think of Cory Abramson’s study of aging, for example), there may be years of collected data, thousands of observations , hundreds of pages of notes to read and review and make sense of.  If all you had was a general interest area (“aging”), it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to make sense of all of that data.  The research question provides a helpful lens to refine and clarify (and simplify) everything you find and collect.  For that reason, it is important to pull out that lens (articulate the research question) before you get started.  In the case of the aging study, Cory Abramson was interested in how inequalities affected understandings and responses to aging.  It is for this reason he designed a study that would allow him to compare different groups of seniors (some middle-class, some poor).  Inevitably, he saw much more in the three years in the field than what made it into his book (or dissertation), but he was able to narrow down the complexity of the social world to provide us with this rich account linked to the original research question.  Developing a good research question is thus crucial to effective design and a successful outcome.  Chapter 4 will provide pointers on how to do this.  Chapter 4 also provides an overview of general approaches taken to doing qualitative research and various “traditions of inquiry.”

Chapter 5 explores sampling .  After you have developed a research question and have a general idea of how you will collect data (Observations?  Interviews?), how do you go about actually finding people and sites to study?  Although there is no “correct number” of people to interview , the sample should follow the research question and research design.  Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research involves nonprobability sampling.  Chapter 5 explains why this is so and what qualities instead make a good sample for qualitative research.

Chapter 6 addresses the importance of reflexivity in qualitative research.  Related to epistemological issues of how we know anything about the social world, qualitative researchers understand that we the researchers can never be truly neutral or outside the study we are conducting.  As observers, we see things that make sense to us and may entirely miss what is either too obvious to note or too different to comprehend.  As interviewers, as much as we would like to ask questions neutrally and remain in the background, interviews are a form of conversation, and the persons we interview are responding to us .  Therefore, it is important to reflect upon our social positions and the knowledges and expectations we bring to our work and to work through any blind spots that we may have.  Chapter 6 provides some examples of reflexivity in practice and exercises for thinking through one’s own biases.

Chapter 7 is a very important chapter and should not be overlooked.  As a practical matter, it should also be read closely with chapters 6 and 8.  Because qualitative researchers deal with people and the social world, it is imperative they develop and adhere to a strong ethical code for conducting research in a way that does not harm.  There are legal requirements and guidelines for doing so (see chapter 8), but these requirements should not be considered synonymous with the ethical code required of us.   Each researcher must constantly interrogate every aspect of their research, from research question to design to sample through analysis and presentation, to ensure that a minimum of harm (ideally, zero harm) is caused.  Because each research project is unique, the standards of care for each study are unique.  Part of being a professional researcher is carrying this code in one’s heart, being constantly attentive to what is required under particular circumstances.  Chapter 7 provides various research scenarios and asks readers to weigh in on the suitability and appropriateness of the research.  If done in a class setting, it will become obvious fairly quickly that there are often no absolutely correct answers, as different people find different aspects of the scenarios of greatest importance.  Minimizing the harm in one area may require possible harm in another.  Being attentive to all the ethical aspects of one’s research and making the best judgments one can, clearly and consciously, is an integral part of being a good researcher.

Chapter 8 , best to be read in conjunction with chapter 7, explains the role and importance of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) .  Under federal guidelines, an IRB is an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor research involving human subjects .  Every institution that receives funding from the federal government has an IRB.  IRBs have the authority to approve, require modifications to (to secure approval), or disapprove research.  This group review serves an important role in the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects.  Chapter 8 reviews the history of IRBs and the work they do but also argues that IRBs’ review of qualitative research is often both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.  Some aspects of qualitative research are not well understood by IRBs, given that they were developed to prevent abuses in biomedical research.  Thus, it is important not to rely on IRBs to identify all the potential ethical issues that emerge in our research (see chapter 7).

Chapter 9 provides help for getting started on formulating a research question based on gaps in the pre-existing literature.  Research is conducted as part of a community, even if particular studies are done by single individuals (or small teams).  What any of us finds and reports back becomes part of a much larger body of knowledge.  Thus, it is important that we look at the larger body of knowledge before we actually start our bit to see how we can best contribute.  When I first began interviewing working-class college students, there was only one other similar study I could find, and it hadn’t been published (it was a dissertation of students from poor backgrounds).  But there had been a lot published by professors who had grown up working class and made it through college despite the odds.  These accounts by “working-class academics” became an important inspiration for my study and helped me frame the questions I asked the students I interviewed.  Chapter 9 will provide some pointers on how to search for relevant literature and how to use this to refine your research question.

Chapter 10 serves as a bridge between the two parts of the textbook, by introducing techniques of data collection.  Qualitative research is often characterized by the form of data collection – for example, an ethnographic study is one that employs primarily observational data collection for the purpose of documenting and presenting a particular culture or ethnos.  Techniques can be effectively combined, depending on the research question and the aims and goals of the study.   Chapter 10 provides a general overview of all the various techniques and how they can be combined.

The second part of the textbook moves into the doing part of qualitative research once the research question has been articulated and the study designed.  Chapters 11 through 17 cover various data collection techniques and approaches.  Chapters 18 and 19 provide a very simple overview of basic data analysis.  Chapter 20 covers communication of the data to various audiences, and in various formats.

Chapter 11 begins our overview of data collection techniques with a focus on interviewing , the true heart of qualitative research.  This technique can serve as the primary and exclusive form of data collection, or it can be used to supplement other forms (observation, archival).  An interview is distinct from a survey, where questions are asked in a specific order and often with a range of predetermined responses available.  Interviews can be conversational and unstructured or, more conventionally, semistructured , where a general set of interview questions “guides” the conversation.  Chapter 11 covers the basics of interviews: how to create interview guides, how many people to interview, where to conduct the interview, what to watch out for (how to prepare against things going wrong), and how to get the most out of your interviews.

Chapter 12 covers an important variant of interviewing, the focus group.  Focus groups are semistructured interviews with a group of people moderated by a facilitator (the researcher or researcher’s assistant).  Focus groups explicitly use group interaction to assist in the data collection.  They are best used to collect data on a specific topic that is non-personal and shared among the group.  For example, asking a group of college students about a common experience such as taking classes by remote delivery during the pandemic year of 2020.  Chapter 12 covers the basics of focus groups: when to use them, how to create interview guides for them, and how to run them effectively.

Chapter 13 moves away from interviewing to the second major form of data collection unique to qualitative researchers – observation .  Qualitative research that employs observation can best be understood as falling on a continuum of “fly on the wall” observation (e.g., observing how strangers interact in a doctor’s waiting room) to “participant” observation, where the researcher is also an active participant of the activity being observed.  For example, an activist in the Black Lives Matter movement might want to study the movement, using her inside position to gain access to observe key meetings and interactions.  Chapter  13 covers the basics of participant observation studies: advantages and disadvantages, gaining access, ethical concerns related to insider/outsider status and entanglement, and recording techniques.

Chapter 14 takes a closer look at “deep ethnography” – immersion in the field of a particularly long duration for the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation of a particular culture or social world.  Clifford Geertz called this “deep hanging out.”  Whereas participant observation is often combined with semistructured interview techniques, deep ethnography’s commitment to “living the life” or experiencing the situation as it really is demands more conversational and natural interactions with people.  These interactions and conversations may take place over months or even years.  As can be expected, there are some costs to this technique, as well as some very large rewards when done competently.  Chapter 14 provides some examples of deep ethnographies that will inspire some beginning researchers and intimidate others.

Chapter 15 moves in the opposite direction of deep ethnography, a technique that is the least positivist of all those discussed here, to mixed methods , a set of techniques that is arguably the most positivist .  A mixed methods approach combines both qualitative data collection and quantitative data collection, commonly by combining a survey that is analyzed statistically (e.g., cross-tabs or regression analyses of large number probability samples) with semi-structured interviews.  Although it is somewhat unconventional to discuss mixed methods in textbooks on qualitative research, I think it is important to recognize this often-employed approach here.  There are several advantages and some disadvantages to taking this route.  Chapter 16 will describe those advantages and disadvantages and provide some particular guidance on how to design a mixed methods study for maximum effectiveness.

Chapter 16 covers data collection that does not involve live human subjects at all – archival and historical research (chapter 17 will also cover data that does not involve interacting with human subjects).  Sometimes people are unavailable to us, either because they do not wish to be interviewed or observed (as is the case with many “elites”) or because they are too far away, in both place and time.  Fortunately, humans leave many traces and we can often answer questions we have by examining those traces.  Special collections and archives can be goldmines for social science research.  This chapter will explain how to access these places, for what purposes, and how to begin to make sense of what you find.

Chapter 17 covers another data collection area that does not involve face-to-face interaction with humans: content analysis .  Although content analysis may be understood more properly as a data analysis technique, the term is often used for the entire approach, which will be the case here.  Content analysis involves interpreting meaning from a body of text.  This body of text might be something found in historical records (see chapter 16) or something collected by the researcher, as in the case of comment posts on a popular blog post.  I once used the stories told by student loan debtors on the website studentloanjustice.org as the content I analyzed.  Content analysis is particularly useful when attempting to define and understand prevalent stories or communication about a topic of interest.  In other words, when we are less interested in what particular people (our defined sample) are doing or believing and more interested in what general narratives exist about a particular topic or issue.  This chapter will explore different approaches to content analysis and provide helpful tips on how to collect data, how to turn that data into codes for analysis, and how to go about presenting what is found through analysis.

Where chapter 17 has pushed us towards data analysis, chapters 18 and 19 are all about what to do with the data collected, whether that data be in the form of interview transcripts or fieldnotes from observations.  Chapter 18 introduces the basics of coding , the iterative process of assigning meaning to the data in order to both simplify and identify patterns.  What is a code and how does it work?  What are the different ways of coding data, and when should you use them?  What is a codebook, and why do you need one?  What does the process of data analysis look like?

Chapter 19 goes further into detail on codes and how to use them, particularly the later stages of coding in which our codes are refined, simplified, combined, and organized.  These later rounds of coding are essential to getting the most out of the data we’ve collected.  As students are often overwhelmed with the amount of data (a corpus of interview transcripts typically runs into the hundreds of pages; fieldnotes can easily top that), this chapter will also address time management and provide suggestions for dealing with chaos and reminders that feeling overwhelmed at the analysis stage is part of the process.  By the end of the chapter, you should understand how “findings” are actually found.

The book concludes with a chapter dedicated to the effective presentation of data results.  Chapter 20 covers the many ways that researchers communicate their studies to various audiences (academic, personal, political), what elements must be included in these various publications, and the hallmarks of excellent qualitative research that various audiences will be expecting.  Because qualitative researchers are motivated by understanding and conveying meaning , effective communication is not only an essential skill but a fundamental facet of the entire research project.  Ethnographers must be able to convey a certain sense of verisimilitude , the appearance of true reality.  Those employing interviews must faithfully depict the key meanings of the people they interviewed in a way that rings true to those people, even if the end result surprises them.  And all researchers must strive for clarity in their publications so that various audiences can understand what was found and why it is important.

The book concludes with a short chapter ( chapter 21 ) discussing the value of qualitative research. At the very end of this book, you will find a glossary of terms. I recommend you make frequent use of the glossary and add to each entry as you find examples. Although the entries are meant to be simple and clear, you may also want to paraphrase the definition—make it “make sense” to you, in other words. In addition to the standard reference list (all works cited here), you will find various recommendations for further reading at the end of many chapters. Some of these recommendations will be examples of excellent qualitative research, indicated with an asterisk (*) at the end of the entry. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. A good example of qualitative research can teach you more about conducting research than any textbook can (this one included). I highly recommend you select one to three examples from these lists and read them along with the textbook.

A final note on the choice of examples – you will note that many of the examples used in the text come from research on college students.  This is for two reasons.  First, as most of my research falls in this area, I am most familiar with this literature and have contacts with those who do research here and can call upon them to share their stories with you.  Second, and more importantly, my hope is that this textbook reaches a wide audience of beginning researchers who study widely and deeply across the range of what can be known about the social world (from marine resources management to public policy to nursing to political science to sexuality studies and beyond).  It is sometimes difficult to find examples that speak to all those research interests, however. A focus on college students is something that all readers can understand and, hopefully, appreciate, as we are all now or have been at some point a college student.

Recommended Reading: Other Qualitative Research Textbooks

I’ve included a brief list of some of my favorite qualitative research textbooks and guidebooks if you need more than what you will find in this introductory text.  For each, I’ve also indicated if these are for “beginning” or “advanced” (graduate-level) readers.  Many of these books have several editions that do not significantly vary; the edition recommended is merely the edition I have used in teaching and to whose page numbers any specific references made in the text agree.

Barbour, Rosaline. 2014. Introducing Qualitative Research: A Student’s Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  A good introduction to qualitative research, with abundant examples (often from the discipline of health care) and clear definitions.  Includes quick summaries at the ends of each chapter.  However, some US students might find the British context distracting and can be a bit advanced in some places.  Beginning .

Bloomberg, Linda Dale, and Marie F. Volpe. 2012. Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  Specifically designed to guide graduate students through the research process. Advanced .

Creswell, John W., and Cheryl Poth. 2018 Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions .  4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  This is a classic and one of the go-to books I used myself as a graduate student.  One of the best things about this text is its clear presentation of five distinct traditions in qualitative research.  Despite the title, this reasonably sized book is about more than research design, including both data analysis and how to write about qualitative research.  Advanced .

Lareau, Annette. 2021. Listening to People: A Practical Guide to Interviewing, Participant Observation, Data Analysis, and Writing It All Up .  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A readable and personal account of conducting qualitative research by an eminent sociologist, with a heavy emphasis on the kinds of participant-observation research conducted by the author.  Despite its reader-friendliness, this is really a book targeted to graduate students learning the craft.  Advanced .

Lune, Howard, and Bruce L. Berg. 2018. 9th edition.  Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences.  Pearson . Although a good introduction to qualitative methods, the authors favor symbolic interactionist and dramaturgical approaches, which limits the appeal primarily to sociologists.  Beginning .

Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2016. 6th edition. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  Very readable and accessible guide to research design by two educational scholars.  Although the presentation is sometimes fairly dry, personal vignettes and illustrations enliven the text.  Beginning .

Maxwell, Joseph A. 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach .  3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. A short and accessible introduction to qualitative research design, particularly helpful for graduate students contemplating theses and dissertations. This has been a standard textbook in my graduate-level courses for years.  Advanced .

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  This is a comprehensive text that served as my “go-to” reference when I was a graduate student.  It is particularly helpful for those involved in program evaluation and other forms of evaluation studies and uses examples from a wide range of disciplines.  Advanced .

Rubin, Ashley T. 2021. Rocking Qualitative Social Science: An Irreverent Guide to Rigorous Research. Stanford : Stanford University Press.  A delightful and personal read.  Rubin uses rock climbing as an extended metaphor for learning how to conduct qualitative research.  A bit slanted toward ethnographic and archival methods of data collection, with frequent examples from her own studies in criminology. Beginning .

Weis, Lois, and Michelle Fine. 2000. Speed Bumps: A Student-Friendly Guide to Qualitative Research . New York: Teachers College Press.  Readable and accessibly written in a quasi-conversational style.  Particularly strong in its discussion of ethical issues throughout the qualitative research process.  Not comprehensive, however, and very much tied to ethnographic research.  Although designed for graduate students, this is a recommended read for students of all levels.  Beginning .

Patton’s Ten Suggestions for Doing Qualitative Research

The following ten suggestions were made by Michael Quinn Patton in his massive textbooks Qualitative Research and Evaluations Methods . This book is highly recommended for those of you who want more than an introduction to qualitative methods. It is the book I relied on heavily when I was a graduate student, although it is much easier to “dip into” when necessary than to read through as a whole. Patton is asked for “just one bit of advice” for a graduate student considering using qualitative research methods for their dissertation.  Here are his top ten responses, in short form, heavily paraphrased, and with additional comments and emphases from me:

• Make sure that a qualitative approach fits the research question. The following are the kinds of questions that call out for qualitative methods or where qualitative methods are particularly appropriate: questions about people’s experiences or how they make sense of those experiences; studying a person in their natural environment; researching a phenomenon so unknown that it would be impossible to study it with standardized instruments or other forms of quantitative data collection.
• Study qualitative research by going to the original sources for the design and analysis appropriate to the particular approach you want to take (e.g., read Glaser and Straus if you are using grounded theory )
• Find a dissertation adviser who understands or at least who will support your use of qualitative research methods. You are asking for trouble if your entire committee is populated by quantitative researchers, even if they are all very knowledgeable about the subject or focus of your study (maybe even more so if they are!)
• Really work on design. Doing qualitative research effectively takes a lot of planning.  Even if things are more flexible than in quantitative research, a good design is absolutely essential when starting out.
• Practice data collection techniques, particularly interviewing and observing. There is definitely a set of learned skills here!  Do not expect your first interview to be perfect.  You will continue to grow as a researcher the more interviews you conduct, and you will probably come to understand yourself a bit more in the process, too.  This is not easy, despite what others who don’t work with qualitative methods may assume (and tell you!)
• Have a plan for analysis before you begin data collection. This is often a requirement in IRB protocols , although you can get away with writing something fairly simple.  And even if you are taking an approach, such as grounded theory, that pushes you to remain fairly open-minded during the data collection process, you still want to know what you will be doing with all the data collected – creating a codebook? Writing analytical memos? Comparing cases?  Having a plan in hand will also help prevent you from collecting too much extraneous data.
• Be prepared to confront controversies both within the qualitative research community and between qualitative research and quantitative research. Don’t be naïve about this – qualitative research, particularly some approaches, will be derided by many more “positivist” researchers and audiences.  For example, is an “n” of 1 really sufficient?  Yes!  But not everyone will agree.
• Do not make the mistake of using qualitative research methods because someone told you it was easier, or because you are intimidated by the math required of statistical analyses. Qualitative research is difficult in its own way (and many would claim much more time-consuming than quantitative research).  Do it because you are convinced it is right for your goals, aims, and research questions.
• Find a good support network. This could be a research mentor, or it could be a group of friends or colleagues who are also using qualitative research, or it could be just someone who will listen to you work through all of the issues you will confront out in the field and during the writing process.  Even though qualitative research often involves human subjects, it can be pretty lonely.  A lot of times you will feel like you are working without a net.  You have to create one for yourself.  Take care of yourself.
• And, finally, in the words of Patton, “Prepare to be changed. Looking deeply at other people’s lives will force you to look deeply at yourself.”
• We will actually spend an entire chapter ( chapter 3 ) looking at this question in much more detail! ↵
• Note that this might have been news to Europeans at the time, but many other societies around the world had also come to this conclusion through observation.  There is often a tendency to equate “the scientific revolution” with the European world in which it took place, but this is somewhat misleading. ↵
• Historians are a special case here.  Historians have scrupulously and rigorously investigated the social world, but not for the purpose of understanding general laws about how things work, which is the point of scientific empirical research.  History is often referred to as an idiographic field of study, meaning that it studies things that happened or are happening in themselves and not for general observations or conclusions. ↵
• Don’t worry, we’ll spend more time later in this book unpacking the meaning of ethnography and other terms that are important here.  Note the available glossary ↵

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

In contrast to methodology, methods are more simply the practices and tools used to collect and analyze data.  Examples of common methods in qualitative research are interviews , observations , and documentary analysis .  One’s methodology should connect to one’s choice of methods, of course, but they are distinguishable terms.  See also methodology .

A proposed explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.  The positing of a hypothesis is often the first step in quantitative research but not in qualitative research.  Even when qualitative researchers offer possible explanations in advance of conducting research, they will tend to not use the word “hypothesis” as it conjures up the kind of positivist research they are not conducting.

The foundational question to be addressed by the research study.  This will form the anchor of the research design, collection, and analysis.  Note that in qualitative research, the research question may, and probably will, alter or develop during the course of the research.

An approach to research that collects and analyzes numerical data for the purpose of finding patterns and averages, making predictions, testing causal relationships, and generalizing results to wider populations.  Contrast with qualitative research .

Data collection that takes place in real-world settings, referred to as “the field;” a key component of much Grounded Theory and ethnographic research.  Patton ( 2002 ) calls fieldwork “the central activity of qualitative inquiry” where “‘going into the field’ means having direct and personal contact with people under study in their own environments – getting close to people and situations being studied to personally understand the realities of minutiae of daily life” (48).

The people who are the subjects of a qualitative study.  In interview-based studies, they may be the respondents to the interviewer; for purposes of IRBs, they are often referred to as the human subjects of the research.

The branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge.  For researchers, it is important to recognize and adopt one of the many distinguishing epistemological perspectives as part of our understanding of what questions research can address or fully answer.  See, e.g., constructivism , subjectivism, and  objectivism .

An approach that refutes the possibility of neutrality in social science research.  All research is “guided by a set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied” (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: 13).  In contrast to positivism , interpretivism recognizes the social constructedness of reality, and researchers adopting this approach focus on capturing interpretations and understandings people have about the world rather than “the world” as it is (which is a chimera).

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

Research based on data collected and analyzed by the research (in contrast to secondary “library” research).

The process of selecting people or other units of analysis to represent a larger population. In quantitative research, this representation is taken quite literally, as statistically representative.  In qualitative research, in contrast, sample selection is often made based on potential to generate insight about a particular topic or phenomenon.

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

The specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.  Contrast population.

The practice of being conscious of and reflective upon one’s own social location and presence when conducting research.  Because qualitative research often requires interaction with live humans, failing to take into account how one’s presence and prior expectations and social location affect the data collected and how analyzed may limit the reliability of the findings.  This remains true even when dealing with historical archives and other content.  Who we are matters when asking questions about how people experience the world because we, too, are a part of that world.

The science and practice of right conduct; in research, it is also the delineation of moral obligations towards research participants, communities to which we belong, and communities in which we conduct our research.

An administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects recruited to participate in research activities conducted under the auspices of the institution with which it is affiliated. The IRB is charged with the responsibility of reviewing all research involving human participants. The IRB is concerned with protecting the welfare, rights, and privacy of human subjects. The IRB has the authority to approve, disapprove, monitor, and require modifications in all research activities that fall within its jurisdiction as specified by both the federal regulations and institutional policy.

Research, according to US federal guidelines, that involves “a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research:  (1) Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or  (2) Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.”

One of the primary methodological traditions of inquiry in qualitative research, ethnography is the study of a group or group culture, largely through observational fieldwork supplemented by interviews. It is a form of fieldwork that may include participant-observation data collection. See chapter 14 for a discussion of deep ethnography. 

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

A method of observational data collection taking place in a natural setting; a form of fieldwork .  The term encompasses a continuum of relative participation by the researcher (from full participant to “fly-on-the-wall” observer).  This is also sometimes referred to as ethnography , although the latter is characterized by a greater focus on the culture under observation.

A research design that employs both quantitative and qualitative methods, as in the case of a survey supplemented by interviews.

An epistemological perspective that posits the existence of reality through sensory experience similar to empiricism but goes further in denying any non-sensory basis of thought or consciousness.  In the social sciences, the term has roots in the proto-sociologist August Comte, who believed he could discern “laws” of society similar to the laws of natural science (e.g., gravity).  The term has come to mean the kinds of measurable and verifiable science conducted by quantitative researchers and is thus used pejoratively by some qualitative researchers interested in interpretation, consciousness, and human understanding.  Calling someone a “positivist” is often intended as an insult.  See also empiricism and objectivism.

A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest; most universities have an archive of material related to the university’s history, as well as other “special collections” that may be of interest to members of the community.

A method of both data collection and data analysis in which a given content (textual, visual, graphic) is examined systematically and rigorously to identify meanings, themes, patterns and assumptions.  Qualitative content analysis (QCA) is concerned with gathering and interpreting an existing body of material.    

A word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data (Saldaña 2021:5).

Usually a verbatim written record of an interview or focus group discussion.

The primary form of data for fieldwork , participant observation , and ethnography .  These notes, taken by the researcher either during the course of fieldwork or at day’s end, should include as many details as possible on what was observed and what was said.  They should include clear identifiers of date, time, setting, and names (or identifying characteristics) of participants.

The process of labeling and organizing qualitative data to identify different themes and the relationships between them; a way of simplifying data to allow better management and retrieval of key themes and illustrative passages.  See coding frame and  codebook.

A methodological tradition of inquiry and approach to analyzing qualitative data in which theories emerge from a rigorous and systematic process of induction.  This approach was pioneered by the sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967).  The elements of theory generated from comparative analysis of data are, first, conceptual categories and their properties and, second, hypotheses or generalized relations among the categories and their properties – “The constant comparing of many groups draws the [researcher’s] attention to their many similarities and differences.  Considering these leads [the researcher] to generate abstract categories and their properties, which, since they emerge from the data, will clearly be important to a theory explaining the kind of behavior under observation.” (36).

A detailed description of any proposed research that involves human subjects for review by IRB.  The protocol serves as the recipe for the conduct of the research activity.  It includes the scientific rationale to justify the conduct of the study, the information necessary to conduct the study, the plan for managing and analyzing the data, and a discussion of the research ethical issues relevant to the research.  Protocols for qualitative research often include interview guides, all documents related to recruitment, informed consent forms, very clear guidelines on the safekeeping of materials collected, and plans for de-identifying transcripts or other data that include personal identifying information.

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

[Guide] How to Present Qualitative Research Findings in PowerPoint?

By: Author Shrot Katewa

As a researcher, it is quite pointless to do the research if we are unable to share the findings with our audience appropriately! Using PowerPoint is one of the best ways to present research outcomes. But, how does one present qualitative research findings using PowerPoint?

In order to present the qualitative research findings using PowerPoint, you need to create a robust structure for your presentation, make it engaging and visually appealing, present the patterns with explanations for it and highlight the conclusion of your research findings.

In this article, we will help you understand the structure of your presentation. Plus, we’ll share some handy tips that will make your qualitative research presentation really effective!

How to Create a Structure for your Qualitative Research Presentation?

Creating the right structure for your presentation is key to ensuring that it is correctly understood by your audience.

The structure of your Research Presentation not only makes it easier for you to create the document, it also makes it simple for the audience to understand what all will be covered in the presentation at the time of presenting it to your audience.

Furthermore, having a robust structure is a great way to ensure that you don’t miss out on any of the points while working on creating the presentation.

But, what structure should one follow?

Creating a good structure can be tricky for some. Thus, I’m sharing what has worked well for me during my previous research projects.

NOTE – It is important to note that although the following structure is highly effective for most research findings presentation, it has been generalized in order to serve a wide range of research projects. You may want to take a look at points that are very specific to the nature of your research project and include them at your discretion.

Here’s my recommended structure to create your Research Findings presentation –

1. Objective of the Research

A great way to start your presentation is to highlight the objective of your research project.

It is important to remember that merely sharing the objective may sometimes not be enough. A short backstory along with the purpose of your research project can pack a powerful punch ! It not only validates the reasoning for your project but also subtly establishes trust with your audience.

However, do make sure that you’re not reading the backstory from the slide. Let it flow naturally when you are delivering the presentation. Keep the presentation as minimalistic as possible.

2. Key Parameters Considered for Measurement

Once you’ve established the objective, the next thing that you may want to do is perhaps share the key parameters considered for the success of your project.

Every research project, including qualitative research, needs to have a few key parameters to measure against the objective of the research.

For example – If the goal of your project is to gather the sentiments of a certain group of people for a particular product, you may need to measure their feelings. Are they happy or unhappy using the product? How do they perceive the branding of the product? Is it affordable?

Make sure that you list down all such key parameters that were considered while conducting the qualitative research.

In general, laying these out before sharing the outcome can help your audience think from your perspective and look at the findings from the correct lens.

3. Research Methodology Adopted

The next thing that you may want to include in your presentation is the methodology that you adopted for conducting the research.

By knowing your approach, the audience can be better prepared for the outcome of your project. Ensure that you provide sound reasoning for the chosen methodology.

This section of your presentation can also showcase some pictures of the research being conducted. If you have captured a video, include that. Doing this provides further validation of your project.

4. Research Outcomes (Presenting Descriptive Analysis)

This is the section that will constitute the bulk of the your presentation.

Use the slides in this section to describe the observations, and the resulting outcomes on each of the key parameters that were considered for the research project.

It is usually a good idea to dedicate at least 1 or more slides for each parameter . Make sure that you present data wherever possible. However, ensure that the data presented can be easily comprehended.

Provide key learnings from the data, highlight any outliers, and possible reasoning for it. Try not to go too in-depth with the stats as this can overwhelm the audience. Remember, a presentation is most helpful when it is used to provide key highlights of the research !

Apart from using the data, make sure that you also include a few quotes from the participants.

5. Summary and Learnings from the Research

Once you’ve taken the audience through the core part of your research findings, it is a good practice to summarize the key learnings from each of the section of your project.

Make sure your touch upon some of the key learnings covered in the research outcome of your presentation.

Furthermore, include any additional observations and key points that you may have had which were previously not covered.

The summary slide also often acts as “Key Takeaways” from the research for your audience. Thus, make sure that you maintain brevity and highlight only the points that you want your audience to remember even after the presentation.

6. Inclusions and Exclusions (if any)

While this can be an optional section for some of the researchers.

However, dedicating a section on inclusions and exclusions in your presentation can be a great value add! This section helps your audience understand the key factors that were excluded (or included) on purpose!

Moreover, it creates a sense of thoroughness in the minds of your audience.

7. Conclusion of the Research

The purpose of the conclusion slide of your research findings presentation is to revisit the objective, and present a conclusion.

A conclusion may simply validate or nullify the objective. It may sometimes do neither. Nevertheless, having a conclusion slide makes your presentation come a full circle. It creates this sense of completion in the minds of your audience.

8. Questions

Finally, since your audience did not spend as much time as you did on the research project, people are bound to have a few questions.

Thus, the last part of your presentation structure should be dedicated to allowing your audience to ask questions.

Tips for Effectively Presenting Qualitative Research Findings using PowerPoint

For a presentation to be effective, it is important that the presentation is not only well structured but also that it is well created and nicely delivered!

While we have already covered the structure, let me share with you some tips that you can help you create and deliver the presentation effectively.

Tip 1 – Use Visuals

Using visuals in your presentation is a great way to keep the presentations engaging!

Visual aids not only help make the presentation less boring, but it also helps your audience in retaining the information better!

So, use images and videos of the actual research wherever possible. If these do not suffice or do not give a professional feel, there are a number of resources online from where you can source royalty-free images.

My recommendation for high-quality royalty-free images would be either Unsplash or Pexels . Both are really good. The only downside is that they often do not provide the perfect image that can be used. That said, it can get the job done for at least half the time.

If you are unable to find the perfect free image, I recommend checking out Dreamstime . They have a huge library of images and are much cheaper than most of the other image banks. I personally use Dreamstime for my presentation projects!

Tip 2 – Tell a Story (Don’t Show Just Data!)

I cannot stress enough on how important it is to give your presentation a human touch. Delivering a presentation in the form of a story does just that! Furthermore, storytelling is also a great tool for visualization .

Data can be hard-hitting, whereas a touching story can tickle the emotions of your audience on various levels!

One of the best ways to present a story with your research project is to start with the backstory of the objective. We’ve already talked about this in the earlier part of this article.

Start with why is this research project is so important. Follow a story arc that provides an exciting experience of the beginning, the middle, and a progression towards a climax; much like a plot of a soap opera.

Tip 3 – Include Quotes of the Participants

Including quotes of the participants in your research findings presentation not only provides evidence but also demonstrates authenticity!

Quotes function as a platform to include the voice of the target group and provide a peek into the mindset of the target audience.

When using quotes, keep these things in mind –

1. Use Quotes in their Unedited Form

When using quotes in your presentation, make sure that you use them in their raw unedited form.

The need to edit quotes should be only restricted to aid comprehension and sometimes coherence.

Furthermore, when editing the quotes, make sure that you use brackets to insert clarifying words. The standard format for using the brackets is to use square brackets for clarifying words and normal brackets for adding a missing explanation.

2. How to Decide which Quotes to Consider?

It is important to know which quotes to include in your presentation. I use the following 3 criteria when selecting the quote –

• Relevance – Consider the quotes that are relevant, and trying to convey the point that you want to establish.
• Length – an ideal quote should be not more than 1-2 sentences long.
• Choose quotes that are well-expressed and striking in nature.

3. Preserve Identity of the Participant

It is important to preserve and protect the identity of the participant. This can be done by maintaining confidentiality and anonymity.

Thus, refrain from using the name of the participant. An alternative could be using codes, using pseudonyms (made up names) or simply using other general non-identifiable parameters.

Do note, when using pseudonyms, remember to highlight it in the presentation.

If, however, you do need to use the name of the respondent, make sure that the participant is okay with it and you have adequate permissions to use their name.

Tip 4 – Make your Presentation Visually Appealing and Engaging

It is quite obvious for most of us that we need to create a visually appealing presentation. But, making it pleasing to the eye can be a bit challenging.

Fortunately, we wrote a detailed blog post with tips on how to make your presentation attractive. It provides you with easy and effective tips that you can use even as a beginner! Make sure you check that article.

7 EASY tips that ALWAYS make your PPT presentation attractive (even for beginners)

In addition to the tips mentioned in the article, let me share a few things that you can do which are specific to research outcome presentations.

4.1 Use a Simple Color Scheme

Using the right colors are key to make a presentation look good.

One of the most common mistakes that people make is use too many colors in their presentation!

My recommendation would be to go with a monochromatic color scheme in PowerPoint .

4.2 Make the Data Tables Simple and Visually Appealing

When making a presentation on research outcomes, you are bound to present some data.

But, when data is not presented in a proper manner, it can easily and quickly make your presentation look displeasing! The video below can be a good starting point.

Using neat looking tables can simply transform the way your presentation looks. So don’t just dump the data from excel on your PowerPoint presentation. Spend a few minutes on fixing it!

4.3 Use Graphs and Charts (wherever necessary)

When presenting data, my recommendation would be that graphs and charts should be your first preference.

Using graphs or charts make it easier to read the data, takes less time for the audience to comprehend, and it also helps to identify a trend.

However, make sure that the correct chart type is used when representing the data. The last thing that you want is to poorly represent a key piece of information.

4.4 Use Icons instead of Bullet Points

Consider the following example –

This slide could have been created just as easily using bullet points. However, using icons and representing the information in a different format makes the slide pleasing on the eye.

Thus, always try to use icons wherever possible instead of bullet points.

Tip 5 – Include the Outliers

Many times, as a research project manager, we tend to focus on the trends extracted from a data set.

While it is important to identify patterns in the data and provide an adequate explanation for the pattern, it is equally important sometimes to highlight the outliers prominently.

It is easy to forget that there may be hidden learnings even in the outliers. At times, the data trend may be re-iterating the common wisdom. However, upon analyzing the outlier data points, you may get insight into how a few participants are doing things successfully despite not following the common knowledge.

That said, not every outlier will reveal hidden information. So, do verify what to include and what to exclude.

Tip 6 – Take Inspiration from other Presentations

I admit, making any presentation can be a tough ask let alone making a presentation for showcasing qualitative research findings. This is especially hard when we don’t have the necessary skills for creating a presentation.

One quick way to overcome this challenge could be take inspiration from other similar presentations that we may have liked.

There is no shame in being inspired from others. If you don’t have any handy references, you can surely Google it to find a few examples.

One trick that almost always works for me is using Pinterest .

But, don’t just directly search for a research presentation. You will have little to no success with it. The key is to look for specific examples for inspiration. For eg. search for Title Slide examples, or Image Layout Examples in Presentation.

Tip 7 – Ask Others to Critic your Presentation

The last tip that I would want to provide is to make sure that you share the presentation with supportive colleagues or mentors to attain feedback.

This step can be critical to iron out the chinks in the armor. As research project manager, it is common for you to get a bit too involved with the project. This can lead to possibilities wherein you miss out on things.

A good way to overcome this challenge is to get a fresh perspective on your project and the presentation once it has been prepared.

Taking critical feedback before your final presentation can also prepare you to handle tough questions in an adept manner.

Final Thoughts

It is quite important to ensure that we get it right when working on a presentation that showcases the findings of our research project. After all, we don’t want to be in a situation wherein we put in all the hard-work in the project, but we fail to deliver the outcome appropriately.

I hope you will find the aforementioned tips and structure useful, and if you do, make sure that you bookmark this page and spread the word. Wishing you all the very best for your project!