research methods chapter 1 quizlet

• Collaborative Sets
• Study Sessions
• Flashcard Pages
• About FlashcardMachine
• Support Form
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Getting Started
• Apple App Store
• Google Play
• Amazon Apps

• Show all results for " "

Research Methodology Chapter 1 Quiz

More actions.

• PDF Questions
• Make a copy

Questions and Answers

What is the distinction between applied and basic research.

• Applied research is conducted in laboratory settings, while basic research is field-based
• Basic research is driven by profit motives, while applied research is driven by academic curiosity
• Basic research is focused on practical applications, while applied research aims to advance theoretical understanding
• Applied research is aimed at solving practical problems, while basic research is conducted to expand knowledge (correct)

Why should managers know about research?

• To make informed decisions based on reliable evidence (correct)
• To delegate research tasks effectively
• To avoid involvement in research processes
• To impress stakeholders with technical knowledge

What are the characteristics of good research?

• Subjectivity, unpredictability, and narrow scope
• Inconsistency, bias, and limited applicability
• Validity, reliability, and generalizability (correct)
• Complexity, ambiguity, and lack of structure

What are the types of business research mentioned in the text?

<p>Quantitative and qualitative research</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the advantage of a scientific approach in research?

<p>It ensures objectivity and replicability of findings</p> Signup and view all the answers

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative research?

<p>Quantitative research focuses on numerical data, while qualitative research emphasizes words and meanings</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>To make informed decisions based on evidence and data</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>It ensures objectivity and reliability of research findings</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Validity, reliability, and generalizability</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Applied research aims to solve practical problems, while basic research seeks to expand knowledge</p> Signup and view all the answers

More Quizzes Like This

Research Methodology: Chapter 1 Quiz

Research Methodology and Literature Study Chapter 1 Quiz

Research Methodology Chapter 1

Upgrade to continue

Today's Special Offer

Save an additional 20% with coupon: SAVE20

Upgrade to a paid plan to continue

Trusted by top students and educators worldwide

We are constantly improving Quizgecko and would love to hear your feedback. You can also submit feature requests here: feature requests.

Create your free account

By continuing, you agree to Quizgecko's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy .

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

Chapter 1: Introduction to Research Methods

Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Define the term “research methods”.
• List the nine steps in undertaking a research project.
• Differentiate between applied and basic research.
• Explain where research ideas come from.
• Define ontology and epistemology and explain the difference between the two.
• Identify and describe five key research paradigms in social sciences.
• Differentiate between inductive and deductive approaches to research.

Welcome to Introduction to Research Methods. In this textbook, you will learn why research is done and, more importantly, about the methods researchers use to conduct research. Research comes in many forms and, although you may feel that it has no relevance to you and/ or that you know nothing about it, you are exposed to research multiple times a day. You also undertake research yourself, perhaps without even realizing it. This course will help you to understand the research you are exposed to on a daily basis, and how to be more critical of the research you read and use in your own life and career.

This text is intended as an introduction. A plethora of resources exists related to more detailed aspects of conducting research; it is not our intention to replace any of these more comprehensive resources. Keep notes and build your own reading list of articles as you go through the course. Feedback helps to improve this open-source textbook, and is appreciated in the development of the resource.

Research Methods, Data Collection and Ethics Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

Chapter 1: Introduction to Research Methods

Learning objectives.

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Define the term “research methods”.
• List the nine steps in undertaking a research project.
• Differentiate between applied and basic research.
• Explain where research ideas come from.
• Define ontology and epistemology and explain the difference between the two.
• Identify and describe five key research paradigms in social sciences.
• Differentiate between inductive and deductive approaches to research.

Welcome to Introduction to Research Methods. In this textbook, you will learn why research is done and, more importantly, about the methods researchers use to conduct research. Research comes in many forms and, although you may feel that it has no relevance to you and/ or that you know nothing about it, you are exposed to research multiple times a day. You also undertake research yourself, perhaps without even realizing it. This course will help you to understand the research you are exposed to on a daily basis, and how to be more critical of the research you read and use in your own life and career.

This text is intended as an introduction. A plethora of resources exists related to more detailed aspects of conducting research; it is not our intention to replace any of these more comprehensive resources. Feedback helps to improve this open-source textbook, and is appreciated in the development of the resource.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

Book Title: Research Methods in Psychology

Author: [Author removed at request of original publisher]

Download this book

• Digital PDF
• Pressbooks XML

Book Description: While Research Methods in Psychology is fairly traditional— making it easy for you to use with your existing courses — it also emphasizes a fundamental idea that is often lost on undergraduates: research methods are not a peripheral concern in our discipline; they are central. For questions about this textbook please contact [email protected]

Book Information

Book description.

Research Methods in Psychology is adapted from a work produced by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution. This adapted edition is produced by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing through the eLearning Support Initiative. For questions about this textbook please contact [email protected]

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

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.

2.2 Research Methods

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Recall the 6 Steps of the Scientific Method
• Differentiate between four kinds of research methods: surveys, field research, experiments, and secondary data analysis.
• Explain the appropriateness of specific research approaches for specific topics.

Sociologists examine the social world, see a problem or interesting pattern, and set out to study it. They use research methods to design a study. Planning the research design is a key step in any sociological study. Sociologists generally choose from widely used methods of social investigation: primary source data collection such as survey, participant observation, ethnography, case study, unobtrusive observations, experiment, and secondary data analysis , or use of existing sources. Every research method comes with plusses and minuses, and the topic of study strongly influences which method or methods are put to use. When you are conducting research think about the best way to gather or obtain knowledge about your topic, think of yourself as an architect. An architect needs a blueprint to build a house, as a sociologist your blueprint is your research design including your data collection method.

When entering a particular social environment, a researcher must be careful. There are times to remain anonymous and times to be overt. There are times to conduct interviews and times to simply observe. Some participants need to be thoroughly informed; others should not know they are being observed. A researcher wouldn’t stroll into a crime-ridden neighborhood at midnight, calling out, “Any gang members around?”

Making sociologists’ presence invisible is not always realistic for other reasons. That option is not available to a researcher studying prison behaviors, early education, or the Ku Klux Klan. Researchers can’t just stroll into prisons, kindergarten classrooms, or Klan meetings and unobtrusively observe behaviors or attract attention. In situations like these, other methods are needed. Researchers choose methods that best suit their study topics, protect research participants or subjects, and that fit with their overall approaches to research.

As a research method, a survey collects data from subjects who respond to a series of questions about behaviors and opinions, often in the form of a questionnaire or an interview. The survey is one of the most widely used scientific research methods. The standard survey format allows individuals a level of anonymity in which they can express personal ideas.

At some point, most people in the United States respond to some type of survey. The 2020 U.S. Census is an excellent example of a large-scale survey intended to gather sociological data. Since 1790, United States has conducted a survey consisting of six questions to received demographical data pertaining to residents. The questions pertain to the demographics of the residents who live in the United States. Currently, the Census is received by residents in the United Stated and five territories and consists of 12 questions.

Not all surveys are considered sociological research, however, and many surveys people commonly encounter focus on identifying marketing needs and strategies rather than testing a hypothesis or contributing to social science knowledge. Questions such as, “How many hot dogs do you eat in a month?” or “Were the staff helpful?” are not usually designed as scientific research. The Nielsen Ratings determine the popularity of television programming through scientific market research. However, polls conducted by television programs such as American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance cannot be generalized, because they are administered to an unrepresentative population, a specific show’s audience. You might receive polls through your cell phones or emails, from grocery stores, restaurants, and retail stores. They often provide you incentives for completing the survey.

Sociologists conduct surveys under controlled conditions for specific purposes. Surveys gather different types of information from people. While surveys are not great at capturing the ways people really behave in social situations, they are a great method for discovering how people feel, think, and act—or at least how they say they feel, think, and act. Surveys can track preferences for presidential candidates or reported individual behaviors (such as sleeping, driving, or texting habits) or information such as employment status, income, and education levels.

A survey targets a specific population , people who are the focus of a study, such as college athletes, international students, or teenagers living with type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes. Most researchers choose to survey a small sector of the population, or a sample , a manageable number of subjects who represent a larger population. The success of a study depends on how well a population is represented by the sample. In a random sample , every person in a population has the same chance of being chosen for the study. As a result, a Gallup Poll, if conducted as a nationwide random sampling, should be able to provide an accurate estimate of public opinion whether it contacts 2,000 or 10,000 people.

After selecting subjects, the researcher develops a specific plan to ask questions and record responses. It is important to inform subjects of the nature and purpose of the survey up front. If they agree to participate, researchers thank subjects and offer them a chance to see the results of the study if they are interested. The researcher presents the subjects with an instrument, which is a means of gathering the information.

A common instrument is a questionnaire. Subjects often answer a series of closed-ended questions . The researcher might ask yes-or-no or multiple-choice questions, allowing subjects to choose possible responses to each question. This kind of questionnaire collects quantitative data —data in numerical form that can be counted and statistically analyzed. Just count up the number of “yes” and “no” responses or correct answers, and chart them into percentages.

Questionnaires can also ask more complex questions with more complex answers—beyond “yes,” “no,” or checkbox options. These types of inquiries use open-ended questions that require short essay responses. Participants willing to take the time to write those answers might convey personal religious beliefs, political views, goals, or morals. The answers are subjective and vary from person to person. How do you plan to use your college education?

Some topics that investigate internal thought processes are impossible to observe directly and are difficult to discuss honestly in a public forum. People are more likely to share honest answers if they can respond to questions anonymously. This type of personal explanation is qualitative data —conveyed through words. Qualitative information is harder to organize and tabulate. The researcher will end up with a wide range of responses, some of which may be surprising. The benefit of written opinions, though, is the wealth of in-depth material that they provide.

An interview is a one-on-one conversation between the researcher and the subject, and it is a way of conducting surveys on a topic. However, participants are free to respond as they wish, without being limited by predetermined choices. In the back-and-forth conversation of an interview, a researcher can ask for clarification, spend more time on a subtopic, or ask additional questions. In an interview, a subject will ideally feel free to open up and answer questions that are often complex. There are no right or wrong answers. The subject might not even know how to answer the questions honestly.

Questions such as “How does society’s view of alcohol consumption influence your decision whether or not to take your first sip of alcohol?” or “Did you feel that the divorce of your parents would put a social stigma on your family?” involve so many factors that the answers are difficult to categorize. A researcher needs to avoid steering or prompting the subject to respond in a specific way; otherwise, the results will prove to be unreliable. The researcher will also benefit from gaining a subject’s trust, from empathizing or commiserating with a subject, and from listening without judgment.

Surveys often collect both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, a researcher interviewing people who are incarcerated might receive quantitative data, such as demographics – race, age, sex, that can be analyzed statistically. For example, the researcher might discover that 20 percent of incarcerated people are above the age of 50. The researcher might also collect qualitative data, such as why people take advantage of educational opportunities during their sentence and other explanatory information.

The survey can be carried out online, over the phone, by mail, or face-to-face. When researchers collect data outside a laboratory, library, or workplace setting, they are conducting field research, which is our next topic.

Field Research

The work of sociology rarely happens in limited, confined spaces. Rather, sociologists go out into the world. They meet subjects where they live, work, and play. Field research refers to gathering primary data from a natural environment. To conduct field research, the sociologist must be willing to step into new environments and observe, participate, or experience those worlds. In field work, the sociologists, rather than the subjects, are the ones out of their element.

The researcher interacts with or observes people and gathers data along the way. The key point in field research is that it takes place in the subject’s natural environment, whether it’s a coffee shop or tribal village, a homeless shelter or the DMV, a hospital, airport, mall, or beach resort.

While field research often begins in a specific setting , the study’s purpose is to observe specific behaviors in that setting. Field work is optimal for observing how people think and behave. It seeks to understand why they behave that way. However, researchers may struggle to narrow down cause and effect when there are so many variables floating around in a natural environment. And while field research looks for correlation, its small sample size does not allow for establishing a causal relationship between two variables. Indeed, much of the data gathered in sociology do not identify a cause and effect but a correlation .

Sociology in the Real World

Beyoncé and lady gaga as sociological subjects.

Sociologists have studied Lady Gaga and Beyoncé and their impact on music, movies, social media, fan participation, and social equality. In their studies, researchers have used several research methods including secondary analysis, participant observation, and surveys from concert participants.

In their study, Click, Lee & Holiday (2013) interviewed 45 Lady Gaga fans who utilized social media to communicate with the artist. These fans viewed Lady Gaga as a mirror of themselves and a source of inspiration. Like her, they embrace not being a part of mainstream culture. Many of Lady Gaga’s fans are members of the LGBTQ community. They see the “song “Born This Way” as a rallying cry and answer her calls for “Paws Up” with a physical expression of solidarity—outstretched arms and fingers bent and curled to resemble monster claws.”

Sascha Buchanan (2019) made use of participant observation to study the relationship between two fan groups, that of Beyoncé and that of Rihanna. She observed award shows sponsored by iHeartRadio, MTV EMA, and BET that pit one group against another as they competed for Best Fan Army, Biggest Fans, and FANdemonium. Buchanan argues that the media thus sustains a myth of rivalry between the two most commercially successful Black women vocal artists.

Participant Observation

In 2000, a comic writer named Rodney Rothman wanted an insider’s view of white-collar work. He slipped into the sterile, high-rise offices of a New York “dot com” agency. Every day for two weeks, he pretended to work there. His main purpose was simply to see whether anyone would notice him or challenge his presence. No one did. The receptionist greeted him. The employees smiled and said good morning. Rothman was accepted as part of the team. He even went so far as to claim a desk, inform the receptionist of his whereabouts, and attend a meeting. He published an article about his experience in The New Yorker called “My Fake Job” (2000). Later, he was discredited for allegedly fabricating some details of the story and The New Yorker issued an apology. However, Rothman’s entertaining article still offered fascinating descriptions of the inside workings of a “dot com” company and exemplified the lengths to which a writer, or a sociologist, will go to uncover material.

Rothman had conducted a form of study called participant observation , in which researchers join people and participate in a group’s routine activities for the purpose of observing them within that context. This method lets researchers experience a specific aspect of social life. A researcher might go to great lengths to get a firsthand look into a trend, institution, or behavior. A researcher might work as a waitress in a diner, experience homelessness for several weeks, or ride along with police officers as they patrol their regular beat. Often, these researchers try to blend in seamlessly with the population they study, and they may not disclose their true identity or purpose if they feel it would compromise the results of their research.

At the beginning of a field study, researchers might have a question: “What really goes on in the kitchen of the most popular diner on campus?” or “What is it like to be homeless?” Participant observation is a useful method if the researcher wants to explore a certain environment from the inside.

Field researchers simply want to observe and learn. In such a setting, the researcher will be alert and open minded to whatever happens, recording all observations accurately. Soon, as patterns emerge, questions will become more specific, observations will lead to hypotheses, and hypotheses will guide the researcher in analyzing data and generating results.

In a study of small towns in the United States conducted by sociological researchers John S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, the team altered their purpose as they gathered data. They initially planned to focus their study on the role of religion in U.S. towns. As they gathered observations, they realized that the effect of industrialization and urbanization was the more relevant topic of this social group. The Lynds did not change their methods, but they revised the purpose of their study.

This shaped the structure of Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture , their published results (Lynd & Lynd, 1929).

The Lynds were upfront about their mission. The townspeople of Muncie, Indiana, knew why the researchers were in their midst. But some sociologists prefer not to alert people to their presence. The main advantage of covert participant observation is that it allows the researcher access to authentic, natural behaviors of a group’s members. The challenge, however, is gaining access to a setting without disrupting the pattern of others’ behavior. Becoming an inside member of a group, organization, or subculture takes time and effort. Researchers must pretend to be something they are not. The process could involve role playing, making contacts, networking, or applying for a job.

Once inside a group, some researchers spend months or even years pretending to be one of the people they are observing. However, as observers, they cannot get too involved. They must keep their purpose in mind and apply the sociological perspective. That way, they illuminate social patterns that are often unrecognized. Because information gathered during participant observation is mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, the end results are often descriptive or interpretive. The researcher might present findings in an article or book and describe what he or she witnessed and experienced.

This type of research is what journalist Barbara Ehrenreich conducted for her book Nickel and Dimed . One day over lunch with her editor, Ehrenreich mentioned an idea. How can people exist on minimum-wage work? How do low-income workers get by? she wondered. Someone should do a study . To her surprise, her editor responded, Why don’t you do it?

That’s how Ehrenreich found herself joining the ranks of the working class. For several months, she left her comfortable home and lived and worked among people who lacked, for the most part, higher education and marketable job skills. Undercover, she applied for and worked minimum wage jobs as a waitress, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a retail chain employee. During her participant observation, she used only her income from those jobs to pay for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.

She discovered the obvious, that it’s almost impossible to get by on minimum wage work. She also experienced and observed attitudes many middle and upper-class people never think about. She witnessed firsthand the treatment of working class employees. She saw the extreme measures people take to make ends meet and to survive. She described fellow employees who held two or three jobs, worked seven days a week, lived in cars, could not pay to treat chronic health conditions, got randomly fired, submitted to drug tests, and moved in and out of homeless shelters. She brought aspects of that life to light, describing difficult working conditions and the poor treatment that low-wage workers suffer.

The book she wrote upon her return to her real life as a well-paid writer, has been widely read and used in many college classrooms.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the immersion of the researcher in the natural setting of an entire social community to observe and experience their everyday life and culture. The heart of an ethnographic study focuses on how subjects view their own social standing and how they understand themselves in relation to a social group.

An ethnographic study might observe, for example, a small U.S. fishing town, an Inuit community, a village in Thailand, a Buddhist monastery, a private boarding school, or an amusement park. These places all have borders. People live, work, study, or vacation within those borders. People are there for a certain reason and therefore behave in certain ways and respect certain cultural norms. An ethnographer would commit to spending a determined amount of time studying every aspect of the chosen place, taking in as much as possible.

A sociologist studying a tribe in the Amazon might watch the way villagers go about their daily lives and then write a paper about it. To observe a spiritual retreat center, an ethnographer might sign up for a retreat and attend as a guest for an extended stay, observe and record data, and collate the material into results.

Institutional Ethnography

Institutional ethnography is an extension of basic ethnographic research principles that focuses intentionally on everyday concrete social relationships. Developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (1990), institutional ethnography is often considered a feminist-inspired approach to social analysis and primarily considers women’s experiences within male- dominated societies and power structures. Smith’s work is seen to challenge sociology’s exclusion of women, both academically and in the study of women’s lives (Fenstermaker, n.d.).

Historically, social science research tended to objectify women and ignore their experiences except as viewed from the male perspective. Modern feminists note that describing women, and other marginalized groups, as subordinates helps those in authority maintain their own dominant positions (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada n.d.). Smith’s three major works explored what she called “the conceptual practices of power” and are still considered seminal works in feminist theory and ethnography (Fensternmaker n.d.).

Sociological Research

The making of middletown: a study in modern u.s. culture.

In 1924, a young married couple named Robert and Helen Lynd undertook an unprecedented ethnography: to apply sociological methods to the study of one U.S. city in order to discover what “ordinary” people in the United States did and believed. Choosing Muncie, Indiana (population about 30,000) as their subject, they moved to the small town and lived there for eighteen months.

Ethnographers had been examining other cultures for decades—groups considered minorities or outsiders—like gangs, immigrants, and the poor. But no one had studied the so-called average American.

Recording interviews and using surveys to gather data, the Lynds objectively described what they observed. Researching existing sources, they compared Muncie in 1890 to the Muncie they observed in 1924. Most Muncie adults, they found, had grown up on farms but now lived in homes inside the city. As a result, the Lynds focused their study on the impact of industrialization and urbanization.

They observed that Muncie was divided into business and working class groups. They defined business class as dealing with abstract concepts and symbols, while working class people used tools to create concrete objects. The two classes led different lives with different goals and hopes. However, the Lynds observed, mass production offered both classes the same amenities. Like wealthy families, the working class was now able to own radios, cars, washing machines, telephones, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators. This was an emerging material reality of the 1920s.

As the Lynds worked, they divided their manuscript into six chapters: Getting a Living, Making a Home, Training the Young, Using Leisure, Engaging in Religious Practices, and Engaging in Community Activities.

When the study was completed, the Lynds encountered a big problem. The Rockefeller Foundation, which had commissioned the book, claimed it was useless and refused to publish it. The Lynds asked if they could seek a publisher themselves.

Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture was not only published in 1929 but also became an instant bestseller, a status unheard of for a sociological study. The book sold out six printings in its first year of publication, and has never gone out of print (Caplow, Hicks, & Wattenberg. 2000).

Nothing like it had ever been done before. Middletown was reviewed on the front page of the New York Times. Readers in the 1920s and 1930s identified with the citizens of Muncie, Indiana, but they were equally fascinated by the sociological methods and the use of scientific data to define ordinary people in the United States. The book was proof that social data was important—and interesting—to the U.S. public.

Sometimes a researcher wants to study one specific person or event. A case study is an in-depth analysis of a single event, situation, or individual. To conduct a case study, a researcher examines existing sources like documents and archival records, conducts interviews, engages in direct observation and even participant observation, if possible.

Researchers might use this method to study a single case of a foster child, drug lord, cancer patient, criminal, or rape victim. However, a major criticism of the case study as a method is that while offering depth on a topic, it does not provide enough evidence to form a generalized conclusion. In other words, it is difficult to make universal claims based on just one person, since one person does not verify a pattern. This is why most sociologists do not use case studies as a primary research method.

However, case studies are useful when the single case is unique. In these instances, a single case study can contribute tremendous insight. For example, a feral child, also called “wild child,” is one who grows up isolated from human beings. Feral children grow up without social contact and language, which are elements crucial to a “civilized” child’s development. These children mimic the behaviors and movements of animals, and often invent their own language. There are only about one hundred cases of “feral children” in the world.

As you may imagine, a feral child is a subject of great interest to researchers. Feral children provide unique information about child development because they have grown up outside of the parameters of “normal” growth and nurturing. And since there are very few feral children, the case study is the most appropriate method for researchers to use in studying the subject.

At age three, a Ukranian girl named Oxana Malaya suffered severe parental neglect. She lived in a shed with dogs, and she ate raw meat and scraps. Five years later, a neighbor called authorities and reported seeing a girl who ran on all fours, barking. Officials brought Oxana into society, where she was cared for and taught some human behaviors, but she never became fully socialized. She has been designated as unable to support herself and now lives in a mental institution (Grice 2011). Case studies like this offer a way for sociologists to collect data that may not be obtained by any other method.

Experiments

You have probably tested some of your own personal social theories. “If I study at night and review in the morning, I’ll improve my retention skills.” Or, “If I stop drinking soda, I’ll feel better.” Cause and effect. If this, then that. When you test the theory, your results either prove or disprove your hypothesis.

One way researchers test social theories is by conducting an experiment , meaning they investigate relationships to test a hypothesis—a scientific approach.

There are two main types of experiments: lab-based experiments and natural or field experiments. In a lab setting, the research can be controlled so that more data can be recorded in a limited amount of time. In a natural or field- based experiment, the time it takes to gather the data cannot be controlled but the information might be considered more accurate since it was collected without interference or intervention by the researcher.

As a research method, either type of sociological experiment is useful for testing if-then statements: if a particular thing happens (cause), then another particular thing will result (effect). To set up a lab-based experiment, sociologists create artificial situations that allow them to manipulate variables.

Classically, the sociologist selects a set of people with similar characteristics, such as age, class, race, or education. Those people are divided into two groups. One is the experimental group and the other is the control group. The experimental group is exposed to the independent variable(s) and the control group is not. To test the benefits of tutoring, for example, the sociologist might provide tutoring to the experimental group of students but not to the control group. Then both groups would be tested for differences in performance to see if tutoring had an effect on the experimental group of students. As you can imagine, in a case like this, the researcher would not want to jeopardize the accomplishments of either group of students, so the setting would be somewhat artificial. The test would not be for a grade reflected on their permanent record of a student, for example.

And if a researcher told the students they would be observed as part of a study on measuring the effectiveness of tutoring, the students might not behave naturally. This is called the Hawthorne effect —which occurs when people change their behavior because they know they are being watched as part of a study. The Hawthorne effect is unavoidable in some research studies because sociologists have to make the purpose of the study known. Subjects must be aware that they are being observed, and a certain amount of artificiality may result (Sonnenfeld 1985).

A real-life example will help illustrate the process. In 1971, Frances Heussenstamm, a sociology professor at California State University at Los Angeles, had a theory about police prejudice. To test her theory, she conducted research. She chose fifteen students from three ethnic backgrounds: Black, White, and Hispanic. She chose students who routinely drove to and from campus along Los Angeles freeway routes, and who had had perfect driving records for longer than a year.

Next, she placed a Black Panther bumper sticker on each car. That sticker, a representation of a social value, was the independent variable. In the 1970s, the Black Panthers were a revolutionary group actively fighting racism. Heussenstamm asked the students to follow their normal driving patterns. She wanted to see whether seeming support for the Black Panthers would change how these good drivers were treated by the police patrolling the highways. The dependent variable would be the number of traffic stops/citations.

The first arrest, for an incorrect lane change, was made two hours after the experiment began. One participant was pulled over three times in three days. He quit the study. After seventeen days, the fifteen drivers had collected a total of thirty-three traffic citations. The research was halted. The funding to pay traffic fines had run out, and so had the enthusiasm of the participants (Heussenstamm, 1971).

Secondary Data Analysis

While sociologists often engage in original research studies, they also contribute knowledge to the discipline through secondary data analysis . Secondary data does not result from firsthand research collected from primary sources, but are the already completed work of other researchers or data collected by an agency or organization. Sociologists might study works written by historians, economists, teachers, or early sociologists. They might search through periodicals, newspapers, or magazines, or organizational data from any period in history.

Using available information not only saves time and money but can also add depth to a study. Sociologists often interpret findings in a new way, a way that was not part of an author’s original purpose or intention. To study how women were encouraged to act and behave in the 1960s, for example, a researcher might watch movies, televisions shows, and situation comedies from that period. Or to research changes in behavior and attitudes due to the emergence of television in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a sociologist would rely on new interpretations of secondary data. Decades from now, researchers will most likely conduct similar studies on the advent of mobile phones, the Internet, or social media.

Social scientists also learn by analyzing the research of a variety of agencies. Governmental departments and global groups, like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics or the World Health Organization (WHO), publish studies with findings that are useful to sociologists. A public statistic like the foreclosure rate might be useful for studying the effects of a recession. A racial demographic profile might be compared with data on education funding to examine the resources accessible by different groups.

One of the advantages of secondary data like old movies or WHO statistics is that it is nonreactive research (or unobtrusive research), meaning that it does not involve direct contact with subjects and will not alter or influence people’s behaviors. Unlike studies requiring direct contact with people, using previously published data does not require entering a population and the investment and risks inherent in that research process.

Using available data does have its challenges. Public records are not always easy to access. A researcher will need to do some legwork to track them down and gain access to records. To guide the search through a vast library of materials and avoid wasting time reading unrelated sources, sociologists employ content analysis , applying a systematic approach to record and value information gleaned from secondary data as they relate to the study at hand.

Also, in some cases, there is no way to verify the accuracy of existing data. It is easy to count how many drunk drivers, for example, are pulled over by the police. But how many are not? While it’s possible to discover the percentage of teenage students who drop out of high school, it might be more challenging to determine the number who return to school or get their GED later.

Another problem arises when data are unavailable in the exact form needed or do not survey the topic from the precise angle the researcher seeks. For example, the average salaries paid to professors at a public school is public record. But these figures do not necessarily reveal how long it took each professor to reach the salary range, what their educational backgrounds are, or how long they’ve been teaching.

When conducting content analysis, it is important to consider the date of publication of an existing source and to take into account attitudes and common cultural ideals that may have influenced the research. For example, when Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd gathered research in the 1920s, attitudes and cultural norms were vastly different then than they are now. Beliefs about gender roles, race, education, and work have changed significantly since then. At the time, the study’s purpose was to reveal insights about small U.S. communities. Today, it is an illustration of 1920s attitudes and values.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/2-2-research-methods

© Aug 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology

Student resources, multiple choice questions.

Revise your knowledge with these multiple choice quiz questions.

Chapter 2: Research in Psychology: Objectives and Ideals

Chapter 3: Research Methods  

Chapter 4: Experimental Design

Chapter 5: Survey Design

Chapter 6: Descriptive Statistics

Chapter 7: Some Principles of Statistical Inference    

Chapter 8: Examining Differences between Means: The t -test

Chapter 9: Examining Relationships between Variables: Correlation    

Chapter 10: Comparing Two or More Means by Analysing Variances: ANOVA    

Chapter 11: Analysing Other Forms of Data: Chi-square and Distribution-free Tests

Chapter 12: Classical Qualitative Methods

Chapter 13: Contextual Qualitative Methods

Chapter 14: Research Ethics    

Chapter 15: Conclusion: Managing Uncertainty in Psychological Research

• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 1)

Once you have chosen a topic to investigate, you need to decide which type of method is best to study it. This is one of the most important choices you will make on your research journey. Understanding the value of each of the methods described in this textbook to answer different questions allows you to be able to plan your own studies with more confidence, critique the studies others have done, and provide advice to your colleagues and friends on what type of research they should do to answer questions they have. After briefly reviewing quantitative research assumptions, this chapter is organized in three parts or sections. These parts can also be used as a checklist when working through the steps of your study. Specifically, part 1 focuses on planning a quantitative study (collecting data), part two explains the steps involved in doing a quantitative study, and part three discusses how to make sense of your results (organizing and analyzing data).

• Chapter One: Introduction
• Chapter Two: Understanding the distinctions among research methods
• Chapter Three: Ethical research, writing, and creative work
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 2 - Doing Your Study)
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 3 - Making Sense of Your Study)
• Chapter Five: Qualitative Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Five: Qualitative Data (Part 2)
• Chapter Six: Critical / Rhetorical Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Six: Critical / Rhetorical Methods (Part 2)
• Chapter Seven: Presenting Your Results

Quantitative Worldview Assumptions: A Review

In chapter 2, you were introduced to the unique assumptions quantitative research holds about knowledge and how it is created, or what the authors referred to in chapter one as "epistemology." Understanding these assumptions can help you better determine whether you need to use quantitative methods for a particular research study in which you are interested.

Quantitative researchers believe there is an objective reality, which can be measured. "Objective" here means that the researcher is not relying on their own perceptions of an event. S/he is attempting to gather "facts" which may be separate from people's feeling or perceptions about the facts. These facts are often conceptualized as "causes" and "effects." When you ask research questions or pose hypotheses with words in them such as "cause," "effect," "difference between," and "predicts," you are operating under assumptions consistent with quantitative methods. The overall goal of quantitative research is to develop generalizations that enable the researcher to better predict, explain, and understand some phenomenon.

Because of trying to prove cause-effect relationships that can be generalized to the population at large, the research process and related procedures are very important for quantitative methods. Research should be consistently and objectively conducted, without bias or error, in order to be considered to be valid (accurate) and reliable (consistent). Perhaps this emphasis on accurate and standardized methods is because the roots of quantitative research are in the natural and physical sciences, both of which have at their base the need to prove hypotheses and theories in order to better understand the world in which we live. When a person goes to a doctor and is prescribed some medicine to treat an illness, that person is glad such research has been done to know what the effects of taking this medicine is on others' bodies, so s/he can trust the doctor's judgment and take the medicines.

As covered in chapters 1 and 2, the questions you are asking should lead you to a certain research method choice. Students sometimes want to avoid doing quantitative research because of fear of math/statistics, but if their questions call for that type of research, they should forge ahead and use it anyway. If a student really wants to understand what the causes or effects are for a particular phenomenon, they need to do quantitative research. If a student is interested in what sorts of things might predict a person's behavior, they need to do quantitative research. If they want to confirm the finding of another researcher, most likely they will need to do quantitative research. If a student wishes to generalize beyond their participant sample to a larger population, they need to be conducting quantitative research.

So, ultimately, your choice of methods really depends on what your research goal is. What do you really want to find out? Do you want to compare two or more groups, look for relationships between certain variables, predict how someone will act or react, or confirm some findings from another study? If so, you want to use quantitative methods.

A topic such as self-esteem can be studied in many ways. Listed below are some example RQs about self-esteem. Which of the following research questions should be answered with quantitative methods?

• Is there a difference between men's and women's level of self- esteem?
• How do college-aged women describe their ups and downs with self-esteem?
• How has "self-esteem" been constructed in popular self-help books over time?
• Is there a relationship between self-esteem levels and communication apprehension?

What are the advantages of approaching a topic like self-esteem using quantitative methods? What are the disadvantages?

For more information, see the following website: Analyse This!!! Learning to analyse quantitative data

Answers:  1 & 4

Quantitative Methods Part One: Planning Your Study

Planning your study is one of the most important steps in the research process when doing quantitative research. As seen in the diagram below, it involves choosing a topic, writing research questions/hypotheses, and designing your study. Each of these topics will be covered in detail in this section of the chapter.

Topic Choice

Decide on topic.

How do you go about choosing a topic for a research project? One of the best ways to do this is to research something about which you would like to know more. Your communication professors will probably also want you to select something that is related to communication and things you are learning about in other communication classes.

When the authors of this textbook select research topics to study, they choose things that pique their interest for a variety of reasons, sometimes personal and sometimes because they see a need for more research in a particular area. For example, April Chatham-Carpenter studies adoption return trips to China because she has two adopted daughters from China and because there is very little research on this topic for Chinese adoptees and their families; she studied home vs. public schooling because her sister home schools, and at the time she started the study very few researchers had considered the social network implications for home schoolers (cf.  http://www.uni.edu/chatham/homeschool.html ).

When you are asked in this class and other classes to select a topic to research, think about topics that you have wondered about, that affect you personally, or that know have gaps in the research. Then start writing down questions you would like to know about this topic. These questions will help you decide whether the goal of your study is to understand something better, explain causes and effects of something, gather the perspectives of others on a topic, or look at how language constructs a certain view of reality.

Review Previous Research

In quantitative research, you do not rely on your conclusions to emerge from the data you collect. Rather, you start out looking for certain things based on what the past research has found. This is consistent with what was called in chapter 2 as a deductive approach (Keyton, 2011), which also leads a quantitative researcher to develop a research question or research problem from reviewing a body of literature, with the previous research framing the study that is being done. So, reviewing previous research done on your topic is an important part of the planning of your study. As seen in chapter 3 and the Appendix, to do an adequate literature review, you need to identify portions of your topic that could have been researched in the past. To do that, you select key terms of concepts related to your topic.

Some people use concept maps to help them identify useful search terms for a literature review. For example, see the following website: Concept Mapping: How to Start Your Term Paper Research .

Narrow Topic to Researchable Area

Once you have selected your topic area and reviewed relevant literature related to your topic, you need to narrow your topic to something that can be researched practically and that will take the research on this topic further. You don't want your research topic to be so broad or large that you are unable to research it. Plus, you want to explain some phenomenon better than has been done before, adding to the literature and theory on a topic. You may want to test out what someone else has found, replicating their study, and therefore building to the body of knowledge already created.

To see how a literature review can be helpful in narrowing your topic, see the following sources.  Narrowing or Broadening Your Research Topic  and  How to Conduct a Literature Review in Social Science

Research Questions & Hypotheses

Write Your Research Questions (RQs) and/or Hypotheses (Hs)

Once you have narrowed your topic based on what you learned from doing your review of literature, you need to formalize your topic area into one or more research questions or hypotheses. If the area you are researching is a relatively new area, and no existing literature or theory can lead you to predict what you might find, then you should write a research question. Take a topic related to social media, for example, which is a relatively new area of study. You might write a research question that asks:

"Is there a difference between how 1st year and 4th year college students use Facebook to communicate with their friends?"

If, however, you are testing out something you think you might find based on the findings of a large amount of previous literature or a well-developed theory, you can write a hypothesis. Researchers often distinguish between  null  and  alternative  hypotheses. The alternative hypothesis is what you are trying to test or prove is true, while the null hypothesis assumes that the alternative hypothesis is not true. For example, if the use of Facebook had been studied a great deal, and there were theories that had been developed on the use of it, then you might develop an alternative hypothesis, such as: "First-year students spend more time on using Facebook to communicate with their friends than fourth-year students do." Your null hypothesis, on the other hand, would be: "First-year students do  not  spend any more time using Facebook to communication with their friends than fourth-year students do." Researchers, however, only state the alternative hypothesis in their studies, and actually call it "hypothesis" rather than "alternative hypothesis."

Process of Writing a Research Question/Hypothesis.

Once you have decided to write a research question (RQ) or hypothesis (H) for your topic, you should go through the following steps to create your RQ or H.

Name the concepts from your overall research topic that you are interested in studying.

RQs and Hs have variables, or concepts that you are interested in studying. Variables can take on different values. For example, in the RQ above, there are at least two variables – year in college and use of Facebook (FB) to communicate. Both of them have a variety of levels within them.

When you look at the concepts you identified, are there any concepts which seem to be related to each other? For example, in our RQ, we are interested in knowing if there is a difference between first-year students and fourth-year students in their use of FB, meaning that we believe there is some connection between our two variables.

• Decide what type of a relationship you would like to study between the variables. Do you think one causes the other? Does a difference in one create a difference in the other? As the value of one changes, does the value of the other change?

Identify which one of these concepts is the independent (or predictor) variable, or the concept that is perceived to be the cause of change in the other variable? Which one is the dependent (criterion) variable, or the one that is affected by changes in the independent variable? In the above example RQ, year in school is the independent variable, and amount of time spent on Facebook communicating with friends is the dependent variable. The amount of time spent on Facebook depends on a person's year in school.

If you're still confused about independent and dependent variables, check out the following site: Independent & Dependent Variables .

Express the relationship between the concepts as a single sentence – in either a hypothesis or a research question.

For example, "is there a difference between international and American students on their perceptions of the basic communication course," where cultural background and perceptions of the course are your two variables. Cultural background would be the independent variable, and perceptions of the course would be your dependent variable. More examples of RQs and Hs are provided in the next section.

APPLICATION: Try the above steps with your topic now. Check with your instructor to see if s/he would like you to send your topic and RQ/H to him/her via e-mail.

Types of Research Questions/Hypotheses

Once you have written your RQ/H, you need to determine what type of research question or hypothesis it is. This will help you later decide what types of statistics you will need to run to answer your question or test your hypothesis. There are three possible types of questions you might ask, and two possible types of hypotheses. The first type of question cannot be written as a hypothesis, but the second and third types can.

Descriptive Question.

The first type of question is a descriptive question. If you have only one variable or concept you are studying, OR if you are not interested in how the variables you are studying are connected or related to each other, then your question is most likely a descriptive question.

This type of question is the closest to looking like a qualitative question, and often starts with a "what" or "how" or "why" or "to what extent" type of wording. What makes it different from a qualitative research question is that the question will be answered using numbers rather than qualitative analysis. Some examples of a descriptive question, using the topic of social media, include the following.

"To what extent are college-aged students using Facebook to communicate with their friends?"

"Why do college-aged students use Facebook to communicate with their friends?"

Notice that neither of these questions has a clear independent or dependent variable, as there is no clear cause or effect being assumed by the question. The question is merely descriptive in nature. It can be answered by summarizing the numbers obtained for each category, such as by providing percentages, averages, or just the raw totals for each type of strategy or organization. This is true also of the following research questions found in a study of online public relations strategies:

"What online public relations strategies are organizations implementing to combat phishing" (Baker, Baker, & Tedesco, 2007, p. 330), and

"Which organizations are doing most and least, according to recommendations from anti- phishing advocacy recommendations, to combat phishing" (Baker, Baker, & Tedesco, 2007, p. 330)

The researchers in this study reported statistics in their results or findings section, making it clearly a quantitative study, but without an independent or dependent variable; therefore, these research questions illustrate the first type of RQ, the descriptive question.

Difference Question/Hypothesis.

The second type of question is a question/hypothesis of difference, and will often have the word "difference" as part of the question. The very first research question in this section, asking if there is a difference between 1st year and 4th year college students' use of Facebook, is an example of this type of question. In this type of question, the independent variable is some type of grouping or categories, such as age. Another example of a question of difference is one April asked in her research on home schooling: "Is there a difference between home vs. public schoolers on the size of their social networks?" In this example, the independent variable is home vs. public schooling (a group being compared), and the dependent variable is size of social networks. Hypotheses can also be difference hypotheses, as the following example on the same topic illustrates: "Public schoolers have a larger social network than home schoolers do."

Relationship/Association Question/Hypothesis.

The third type of question is a relationship/association question or hypothesis, and will often have the word "relate" or "relationship" in it, as the following example does: "There is a relationship between number of television ads for a political candidate and how successful that political candidate is in getting elected." Here the independent (or predictor) variable is number of TV ads, and the dependent (or criterion) variable is the success at getting elected. In this type of question, there is no grouping being compared, but rather the independent variable is continuous (ranges from zero to a certain number) in nature. This type of question can be worded as either a hypothesis or as a research question, as stated earlier.

Test out your knowledge of the above information, by answering the following questions about the RQ/H listed below. (Remember, for a descriptive question there are no clear independent & dependent variables.)

• What is the independent variable (IV)?
• What is the dependent variable (DV)?
• What type of research question/hypothesis is it? (descriptive, difference, relationship/association)
• "Is there a difference on relational satisfaction between those who met their current partner through online dating and those who met their current partner face-to-face?"
• "How do Fortune 500 firms use focus groups to market new products?"
• "There is a relationship between age and amount of time spent online using social media."

Answers: RQ1  is a difference question, with type of dating being the IV and relational satisfaction being the DV. RQ2  is a descriptive question with no IV or DV. RQ3  is a relationship hypothesis with age as the IV and amount of time spent online as the DV.

Design Your Study

The third step in planning your research project, after you have decided on your topic/goal and written your research questions/hypotheses, is to design your study which means to decide how to proceed in gathering data to answer your research question or to test your hypothesis. This step includes six things to do. [NOTE: The terms used in this section will be defined as they are used.]

• Decide type of study design: Experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental.
• Decide kind of data to collect: Survey/interview, observation, already existing data.
• Operationalize variables into measurable concepts.
• Determine type of sample: Probability or non-probability.
• Decide how you will collect your data: face-to-face, via e-mail, an online survey, library research, etc.
• Pilot test your methods.

Types of Study Designs

With quantitative research being rooted in the scientific method, traditional research is structured in an experimental fashion. This is especially true in the natural sciences, where they try to prove causes and effects on topics such as successful treatments for cancer. For example, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics regularly conduct clinical trials to test for the effectiveness of certain treatments for medical conditions ( University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics: Clinical Trials ). They use human participants to conduct such research, regularly recruiting volunteers. However, in communication, true experiments with treatments the researcher controls are less necessary and thus less common. It is important for the researcher to understand which type of study s/he wishes to do, in order to accurately communicate his/her methods to the public when describing the study.

There are three possible types of studies you may choose to do, when embarking on quantitative research: (a) True experiments, (b) quasi-experiments, and (c) non-experiments.

For more information to read on these types of designs, take a look at the following website and related links in it: Types of Designs .

The following flowchart should help you distinguish between the three types of study designs described below.

True Experiments.

The first two types of study designs use difference questions/hypotheses, as the independent variable for true and quasi-experiments is  nominal  or categorical (based on categories or groupings), as you have groups that are being compared. As seen in the flowchart above, what distinguishes a true experiment from the other two designs is a concept called "random assignment." Random assignment means that the researcher controls to which group the participants are assigned. April's study of home vs. public schooling was NOT a true experiment, because she could not control which participants were home schooled and which ones were public schooled, and instead relied on already existing groups.

An example of a true experiment reported in a communication journal is a study investigating the effects of using interest-based contemporary examples in a lecture on the history of public relations, in which the researchers had the following two hypotheses: "Lectures utilizing interest- based examples should result in more interested participants" and "Lectures utilizing interest- based examples should result in participants with higher scores on subsequent tests of cognitive recall" (Weber, Corrigan, Fornash, & Neupauer, 2003, p. 118). In this study, the 122 college student participants were randomly assigned by the researchers to one of two lecture video viewing groups: a video lecture with traditional examples and a video with contemporary examples. (To see the results of the study, look it up using your school's library databases).

A second example of a true experiment in communication is a study of the effects of viewing either a dramatic narrative television show vs. a nonnarrative television show about the consequences of an unexpected teen pregnancy. The researchers randomly assigned their 367 undergraduate participants to view one of the two types of shows.

Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion.  Human Communication Research, 36 , 26-52.

A third example of a true experiment done in the field of communication can be found in the following study.

Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility.  Human Communication Research, 34,  347-369.

In this study, Jakob Jensen had three independent variables. He randomly assigned his 601 participants to 1 of 20 possible conditions, between his three independent variables, which were (a) a hedged vs. not hedged message, (b) the source of the hedging message (research attributed to primary vs. unaffiliated scientists), and (c) specific news story employed (of which he had five randomly selected news stories about cancer research to choose from). Although this study was pretty complex, it does illustrate the true experiment in our field since the participants were randomly assigned to read a particular news story, with certain characteristics.

Quasi-Experiments.

If the researcher is not able to randomly assign participants to one of the treatment groups (or independent variable), but the participants already belong to one of them (e.g., age; home vs. public schooling), then the design is called a quasi-experiment. Here you still have an independent variable with groups, but the participants already belong to a group before the study starts, and the researcher has no control over which group they belong to.

An example of a hypothesis found in a communication study is the following: "Individuals high in trait aggression will enjoy violent content more than nonviolent content, whereas those low in trait aggression will enjoy violent content less than nonviolent content" (Weaver & Wilson, 2009, p. 448). In this study, the researchers could not assign the participants to a high or low trait aggression group since this is a personality characteristic, so this is a quasi-experiment. It does not have any random assignment of participants to the independent variable groups. Read their study, if you would like to, at the following location.

Weaver, A. J., & Wilson, B. J. (2009). The role of graphic and sanitized violence in the enjoyment of television dramas.  Human Communication Research, 35  (3), 442-463.

Benoit and Hansen (2004) did not choose to randomly assign participants to groups either, in their study of a national presidential election survey, in which they were looking at differences between debate and non-debate viewers, in terms of several dependent variables, such as which candidate viewers supported. If you are interested in discovering the results of this study, take a look at the following article.

Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice.  Human Communication Research, 30  (1), 121-144.

Non-Experiments.

The third type of design is the non-experiment. Non-experiments are sometimes called survey designs, because their primary way of collecting data is through surveys. This is not enough to distinguish them from true experiments and quasi-experiments, however, as both of those types of designs may use surveys as well.

What makes a study a non-experiment is that the independent variable is not a grouping or categorical variable. Researchers observe or survey participants in order to describe them as they naturally exist without any experimental intervention. Researchers do not give treatments or observe the effects of a potential natural grouping variable such as age. Descriptive and relationship/association questions are most often used in non-experiments.

Some examples of this type of commonly used design for communication researchers include the following studies.

• Serota, Levine, and Boster (2010) used a national survey of 1,000 adults to determine the prevalence of lying in America (see  Human Communication Research, 36 , pp. 2-25).
• Nabi (2009) surveyed 170 young adults on their perceptions of reality television on cosmetic surgery effects, looking at several things: for example, does viewing cosmetic surgery makeover programs relate to body satisfaction (p. 6), finding no significant relationship between those two variables (see  Human Communication Research, 35 , pp. 1-27).
• Derlega, Winstead, Mathews, and Braitman (2008) collected stories from 238 college students on reasons why they would disclose or not disclose personal information within close relationships (see  Communication Research Reports, 25 , pp. 115-130). They coded the participants' answers into categories so they could count how often specific reasons were mentioned, using a method called  content analysis , to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are research participants' attributions for the disclosure and nondisclosure of highly personal information?

RQ2: Do attributions reflect concerns about rewards and costs of disclosure or the tension between openness with another and privacy?

RQ3: How often are particular attributions for disclosure/nondisclosure used in various types of relationships? (p. 117)

All of these non-experimental studies have in common no researcher manipulation of an independent variable or even having an independent variable that has natural groups that are being compared.

Identify which design discussed above should be used for each of the following research questions.

• Is there a difference between generations on how much they use MySpace?
• Is there a relationship between age when a person first started using Facebook and the amount of time they currently spend on Facebook daily?
• Is there a difference between potential customers' perceptions of an organization who are shown an organization's Facebook page and those who are not shown an organization's Facebook page?

[HINT: Try to identify the independent and dependent variable in each question above first, before determining what type of design you would use. Also, try to determine what type of question it is – descriptive, difference, or relationship/association.]

Answers: 1. Quasi-experiment 2. Non-experiment 3. True Experiment

Data Collection Methods

Once you decide the type of quantitative research design you will be using, you will need to determine which of the following types of data you will collect: (a) survey data, (b) observational data, and/or (c) already existing data, as in library research.

Using the survey data collection method means you will talk to people or survey them about their behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and demographic characteristics (e.g., biological sex, socio-economic status, race). This type of data usually consists of a series of questions related to the concepts you want to study (i.e., your independent and dependent variables). Both of April's studies on home schooling and on taking adopted children on a return trip back to China used survey data.

On a survey, you can have both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions, can be written in a variety of forms. Some of the most common response options include the following.

Likert responses – for example: for the following statement, ______ do you strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree

Semantic differential – for example: does the following ______ make you Happy ..................................... Sad

Yes-no answers for example: I use social media daily. Yes / No.

One site to check out for possible response options is  http://www.360degreefeedback.net/media/ResponseScales.pdf .

Researchers often follow up some of their closed-ended questions with an "other" category, in which they ask their participants to "please specify," their response if none of the ones provided are applicable. They may also ask open-ended questions on "why" a participant chose a particular answer or ask participants for more information about a particular topic. If the researcher wants to use the open-ended question responses as part of his/her quantitative study, the answers are usually coded into categories and counted, in terms of the frequency of a certain answer, using a method called  content analysis , which will be discussed when we talk about already-existing artifacts as a source of data.

Surveys can be done face-to-face, by telephone, mail, or online. Each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, primarily in the form of the cost in time and money to do the survey. For example, if you want to survey many people, then online survey tools such as surveygizmo.com and surveymonkey.com are very efficient, but not everyone has access to taking a survey on the computer, so you may not get an adequate sample of the population by doing so. Plus you have to decide how you will recruit people to take your online survey, which can be challenging. There are trade-offs with every method.

For more information on things to consider when selecting your survey method, check out the following website:

Selecting the Survey Method .

There are also many good sources for developing a good survey, such as the following websites. Constructing the Survey Survey Methods Designing Surveys

Observation.

A second type of data collection method is  observation . In this data collection method, you make observations of the phenomenon you are studying and then code your observations, so that you can count what you are studying. This type of data collection method is often called interaction analysis, if you collect data by observing people's behavior. For example, if you want to study the phenomenon of mall-walking, you could go to a mall and count characteristics of mall-walkers. A researcher in the area of health communication could study the occurrence of humor in an operating room, for example, by coding and counting the use of humor in such a setting.

One extended research study using observational data collection methods, which is cited often in interpersonal communication classes, is John Gottman's research, which started out in what is now called "The Love Lab." In this lab, researchers observe interactions between couples, including physiological symptoms, using coders who look for certain items found to predict relationship problems and success.

Take a look at the YouTube video about "The Love Lab" at the following site to learn more about the potential of using observation in collecting data for a research study:  The "Love" Lab .

Already-Existing Artifacts.

The third method of quantitative data collection is the use of  already-existing artifacts . With this method, you choose certain artifacts (e.g., newspaper or magazine articles; television programs; webpages) and code their content, resulting in a count of whatever you are studying. With this data collection method, researchers most often use what is called quantitative  content analysis . Basically, the researcher counts frequencies of something that occurs in an artifact of study, such as the frequency of times something is mentioned on a webpage. Content analysis can also be used in qualitative research, where a researcher identifies and creates text-based themes but does not do a count of the occurrences of these themes. Content analysis can also be used to take open-ended questions from a survey method, and identify countable themes within the questions.

Content analysis is a very common method used in media studies, given researchers are interested in studying already-existing media artifacts. There are many good sources to illustrate how to do content analysis such as are seen in the box below.

See the following sources for more information on content analysis. Writing Guide: Content Analysis A Flowchart for the Typical Process of Content Analysis Research What is Content Analysis?

With content analysis and any method that you use to code something into categories, one key concept you need to remember is  inter-coder or inter-rater reliability , in which there are multiple coders (at least two) trained to code the observations into categories. This check on coding is important because you need to check to make sure that the way you are coding your observations on the open-ended answers is the same way that others would code a particular item. To establish this kind of inter-coder or inter-rater reliability, researchers prepare codebooks (to train their coders on how to code the materials) and coding forms for their coders to use.

To see some examples of actual codebooks used in research, see the following website:  Human Coding--Sample Materials .

There are also online inter-coder reliability calculators some researchers use, such as the following:  ReCal: reliability calculation for the masses .

Regardless of which method of data collection you choose, you need to decide even more specifically how you will measure the variables in your study, which leads us to the next planning step in the design of a study.

Operationalization of Variables into Measurable Concepts

When you look at your research question/s and/or hypotheses, you should know already what your independent and dependent variables are. Both of these need to be measured in some way. We call that way of measuring  operationalizing  a variable. One way to think of it is writing a step by step recipe for how you plan to obtain data on this topic. How you choose to operationalize your variable (or write the recipe) is one all-important decision you have to make, which will make or break your study. In quantitative research, you have to measure your variables in a valid (accurate) and reliable (consistent) manner, which we discuss in this section. You also need to determine the level of measurement you will use for your variables, which will help you later decide what statistical tests you need to run to answer your research question/s or test your hypotheses. We will start with the last topic first.

Level of Measurement

Level of measurement has to do with whether you measure your variables using categories or groupings OR whether you measure your variables using a continuous level of measurement (range of numbers). The level of measurement that is considered to be categorical in nature is called nominal, while the levels of measurement considered to be continuous in nature are ordinal, interval, and ratio. The only ones you really need to know are nominal, ordinal, and interval/ratio.

Nominal  variables are categories that do not have meaningful numbers attached to them but are broader categories, such as male and female, home schooled and public schooled, Caucasian and African-American.  Ordinal  variables do have numbers attached to them, in that the numbers are in a certain order, but there are not equal intervals between the numbers (e.g., such as when you rank a group of 5 items from most to least preferred, where 3 might be highly preferred, and 2 hated).  Interval/ratio  variables have equal intervals between the numbers (e.g., weight, age).

For more information about these levels of measurement, check out one of the following websites. Levels of Measurement Measurement Scales in Social Science Research What is the difference between ordinal, interval and ratio variables? Why should I care?

Validity and Reliability

When developing a scale/measure or survey, you need to be concerned about validity and reliability. Readers of quantitative research expect to see researchers justify their research measures using these two terms in the methods section of an article or paper.

Validity.   Validity  is the extent to which your scale/measure or survey adequately reflects the full meaning of the concept you are measuring. Does it measure what you say it measures? For example, if researchers wanted to develop a scale to measure "servant leadership," the researchers would have to determine what dimensions of servant leadership they wanted to measure, and then create items which would be valid or accurate measures of these dimensions. If they included items related to a different type of leadership, those items would not be a valid measure of servant leadership. When doing so, the researchers are trying to prove their measure has internal validity. Researchers may also be interested in external validity, but that has to do with how generalizable their study is to a larger population (a topic related to sampling, which we will consider in the next section), and has less to do with the validity of the instrument itself.

There are several types of validity you may read about, including face validity, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity. To learn more about these types of validity, read the information at the following link: Validity .

To improve the validity of an instrument, researchers need to fully understand the concept they are trying to measure. This means they know the academic literature surrounding that concept well and write several survey questions on each dimension measured, to make sure the full idea of the concept is being measured. For example, Page and Wong (n.d.) identified four dimensions of servant leadership: character, people-orientation, task-orientation, and process-orientation ( A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Servant-Leadership ). All of these dimensions (and any others identified by other researchers) would need multiple survey items developed if a researcher wanted to create a new scale on servant leadership.

Before you create a new survey, it can be useful to see if one already exists with established validity and reliability. Such measures can be found by seeing what other respected studies have used to measure a concept and then doing a library search to find the scale/measure itself (sometimes found in the reference area of a library in books like those listed below).

Reliability .  Reliability  is the second criterion you will need to address if you choose to develop your own scale or measure. Reliability is concerned with whether a measurement is consistent and reproducible. If you have ever wondered why, when taking a survey, that a question is asked more than once or very similar questions are asked multiple times, it is because the researchers one concerned with proving their study has reliability. Are you, for example, answering all of the similar questions similarly? If so, the measure/scale may have good reliability or consistency over time.

Researchers can use a variety of ways to show their measure/scale is reliable. See the following websites for explanations of some of these ways, which include methods such as the test-retest method, the split-half method, and inter-coder/rater reliability. Types of Reliability Reliability

To understand the relationship between validity and reliability, a nice visual provided below is explained at the following website (Trochim, 2006, para. 2). Reliability & Validity

Self-Quiz/Discussion:

Take a look at one of the surveys found at the following poll reporting sites on a topic which interests you. Critique one of these surveys, using what you have learned about creating surveys so far.

http://www.pewinternet.org/ http://pewresearch.org/ http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx http://www.kff.org/

One of the things you might have critiqued in the previous self-quiz/discussion may have had less to do with the actual survey itself, but rather with how the researchers got their participants or sample. How participants are recruited is just as important to doing a good study as how valid and reliable a survey is.

Imagine that in the article you chose for the last "self-quiz/discussion" you read the following quote from the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project: "One in three teens sends more than 100 text messages a day, or 3000 texts a month" (Lenhart, 2010, para.5). How would you know whether you could trust this finding to be true? Would you compare it to what you know about texting from your own and your friends' experiences? Would you want to know what types of questions people were asked to determine this statistic, or whether the survey the statistic is based on is valid and reliable? Would you want to know what type of people were surveyed for the study? As a critical consumer of research, you should ask all of these types of questions, rather than just accepting such a statement as undisputable fact. For example, if only people shopping at an Apple Store were surveyed, the results might be skewed high.

In particular, related to the topic of this section, you should ask about the sampling method the researchers did. Often, the researchers will provide information related to the sample, stating how many participants were surveyed (in this case 800 teens, aged 12-17, who were a nationally representative sample of the population) and how much the "margin of error" is (in this case +/- 3.8%). Why do they state such things? It is because they know the importance of a sample in making the case for their findings being legitimate and credible.  Margin of error  is how much we are confident that our findings represent the population at large. The larger the margin of error, the less likely it is that the poll or survey is accurate. Margin of error assumes a 95% confidence level that what we found from our study represents the population at large.

For more information on margin of error, see one of the following websites. Answers.com Margin of Error Stats.org Margin of Error Americanresearchgroup.com Margin of Error [this last site is a margin of error calculator, which shows that margin of error is directly tied to the size of your sample, in relationship to the size of the population, two concepts we will talk about in the next few paragraphs]

In particular, this section focused on sampling will talk about the following topics: (a) the difference between a population vs. a sample; (b) concepts of error and bias, or "it's all about significance"; (c) probability vs. non-probability sampling; and (d) sample size issues.

Population vs. Sample

When doing quantitative studies, such as the study of cell phone usage among teens, you are never able to survey the entire population of teenagers, so you survey a portion of the population. If you study every member of a population, then you are conducting a census such as the United States Government does every 10 years. When, however, this is not possible (because you do not have the money the U.S. government has!), you attempt to get as good a sample as possible.

Characteristics of a population are summarized in numerical form, and technically these numbers are called  parameters . However, numbers which summarize the characteristics of a sample are called  statistics .

Error and Bias

If a sample is not done well, then you may not have confidence in how the study's results can be generalized to the population from which the sample was taken. Your confidence level is often stated as the  margin of error  of the survey. As noted earlier, a study's margin of error refers to the degree to which a sample differs from the total population you are studying. In the Pew survey, they had a margin of error of +/- 3.8%. So, for example, when the Pew survey said 33% of teens send more than 100 texts a day, the margin of error means they were 95% sure that 29.2% - 36.8% of teens send this many texts a day.

Margin of error is tied to  sampling error , which is how much difference there is between your sample's results and what would have been obtained if you had surveyed the whole population. Sample error is linked to a very important concept for quantitative researchers, which is the notion of  significance . Here, significance does not refer to whether some finding is morally or practically significant, it refers to whether a finding is statistically significant, meaning the findings are not due to chance but actually represent something that is found in the population.  Statistical significance  is about how much you, as the researcher, are willing to risk saying you found something important and be wrong.

For the difference between statistical significance and practical significance, see the following YouTube video:  Statistical and Practical Significance .

Scientists set certain arbitrary standards based on the probability they could be wrong in reporting their findings. These are called  significance levels  and are commonly reported in the literature as  p <.05  or  p <.01  or some other probability (or  p ) level.

If an article says a statistical test reported that  p < .05 , it simply means that they are most likely correct in what they are saying, but there is a 5% chance they could be wrong and not find the same results in the population. If p < .01, then there would be only a 1% chance they were wrong and would not find the same results in the population. The lower the probability level, the more certain the results.

When researchers are wrong, or make that kind of decision error, it often implies that either (a) their sample was biased and was not representative of the true population in some way, or (b) that something they did in collecting the data biased the results. There are actually two kinds of sampling error talked about in quantitative research: Type I and Type II error.  Type 1 error  is what happens when you think you found something statistically significant and claim there is a significant difference or relationship, when there really is not in the actual population. So there is something about your sample that made you find something that is not in the actual population. (Type I error is the same as the probability level, or .05, if using the traditional p-level accepted by most researchers.)  Type II error  happens when you don't find a statistically significant difference or relationship, yet there actually is one in the population at large, so once again, your sample is not representative of the population.

For more information on these two types of error, check out the following websites. Hypothesis Testing: Type I Error, Type II Error Type I and Type II Errors - Making Mistakes in the Justice System

Researchers want to select a sample that is representative of the population in order to reduce the likelihood of having a sample that is biased. There are two types of bias particularly troublesome for researchers, in terms of sampling error. The first type is  selection bias , in which each person in the population does not have an equal chance to be chosen for the sample, which happens frequently in communication studies, because we often rely on convenience samples (whoever we can get to complete our surveys). The second type of bias is  response bias , in which those who volunteer for a study have different characteristics than those who did not volunteer for the study, another common challenge for communication researchers. Volunteers for a study may very well be different from persons who choose not to volunteer for a study, so that you have a biased sample by relying just on volunteers, which is not representative of the population from which you are trying to sample.

Probability vs. Non-Probability Sampling

One of the best ways to lower your sampling error and reduce the possibility of bias is to do probability or random sampling. This means that every person in the population has an equal chance of being selected to be in your sample. Another way of looking at this is to attempt to get a  representative  sample, so that the characteristics of your sample closely approximate those of the population. A sample needs to contain essentially the same variations that exist in the population, if possible, especially on the variables or elements that are most important to you (e.g., age, biological sex, race, level of education, socio-economic class).

There are many different ways to draw a probability/random sample from the population. Some of the most common are a  simple random sample , where you use a random numbers table or random number generator to select your sample from the population.

There are several examples of random number generators available online. See the following example of an online random number generator:  http://www.randomizer.org/ .

A  systematic random sample  takes every n-th number from the population, depending on how many people you would like to have in your sample. A  stratified random sample  does random sampling within groups, and a  multi-stage  or  cluster sample  is used when there are multiple groups within a large area and a large population, and the researcher does random sampling in stages.

If you are interested in understanding more about these types of probability/random samples, take a look at the following website: Probability Sampling .

However, many times communication researchers use whoever they can find to participate in their study, such as college students in their classes since these people are easily accessible. Many of the studies in interpersonal communication and relationship development, for example, used this type of sample. This is called a convenience sample. In doing so, they are using a non- probability or non-random sample. In these types of samples, each member of the population does not have an equal opportunity to be selected. For example, if you decide to ask your facebook friends to participate in an online survey you created about how college students in the U.S. use cell phones to text, you are using a non-random type of sample. You are unable to randomly sample the whole population in the U.S. of college students who text, so you attempt to find participants more conveniently. Some common non-random or non-probability samples are:

• accidental/convenience samples, such as the facebook example illustrates
• quota samples, in which you do convenience samples within subgroups of the population, such as biological sex, looking for a certain number of participants in each group being compared
• snowball or network sampling, where you ask current participants to send your survey onto their friends.

For more information on non-probability sampling, see the following website: Nonprobability Sampling .

Researchers, such as communication scholars, often use these types of samples because of the nature of their research. Most research designs used in communication are not true experiments, such as would be required in the medical field where they are trying to prove some cause-effect relationship to cure or alleviate symptoms of a disease. Most communication scholars recognize that human behavior in communication situations is much less predictable, so they do not adhere to the strictest possible worldview related to quantitative methods and are less concerned with having to use probability sampling.

They do recognize, however, that with either probability or non-probability sampling, there is still the possibility of bias and error, although much less with probability sampling. That is why all quantitative researchers, regardless of field, will report statistical significance levels if they are interested in generalizing from their sample to the population at large, to let the readers of their work know how confident they are in their results.

Size of Sample

The larger the sample, the more likely the sample is going to be representative of the population. If there is a lot of variability in the population (e.g., lots of different ethnic groups in the population), a researcher will need a larger sample. If you are interested in detecting small possible differences (e.g., in a close political race), you need a larger sample. However, the bigger your population, the less you have to increase the size of your sample in order to have an adequate sample, as is illustrated by an example sample size calculator such as can be found at  http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html .

Using the example sample size calculator, see how you might determine how large of a sample you might need in order to study how college students in the U.S. use texting on their cell phones. You would have to first determine approximately how many college students are in the U.S. According to ANEKI, there are a little over 14,000,000 college students in the U.S. ( Countries with the Most University Students ). When inputting that figure into the sample size calculator below (using no commas for the population size), you would need a sample size of approximately 385 students. If the population size was 20,000, you would need a sample of 377 students. If the population was only 2,000, you would need a sample of 323. For a population of 500, you would need a sample of 218.

It is not enough, however, to just have an adequate or large sample. If there is bias in the sampling, you can have a very bad large sample, one that also does not represent the population at large. So, having an unbiased sample is even more important than having a large sample.

So, what do you do, if you cannot reasonably conduct a probability or random sample? You run statistics which report significance levels, and you report the limitations of your sample in the discussion section of your paper/article.

Pilot Testing Methods

Now that we have talked about the different elements of your study design, you should try out your methods by doing a pilot test of some kind. This means that you try out your procedures with someone to try to catch any mistakes in your design before you start collecting data from actual participants in your study. This will save you time and money in the long run, along with unneeded angst over mistakes you made in your design during data collection. There are several ways you might do this.

You might ask an expert who knows about this topic (such as a faculty member) to try out your experiment or survey and provide feedback on what they think of your design. You might ask some participants who are like your potential sample to take your survey or be a part of your pilot test; then you could ask them which parts were confusing or needed revising. You might have potential participants explain to you what they think your questions mean, to see if they are interpreting them like you intended, or if you need to make some questions clearer.

The main thing is that you do not just assume your methods will work or are the best type of methods to use until you try them out with someone. As you write up your study, in your methods section of your paper, you can then talk about what you did to change your study based on the pilot study you did.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

The last step of your planning takes place when you take the necessary steps to get your study approved by your institution's review board. As you read in chapter 3, this step is important if you are planning on using the data or results from your study beyond just the requirements for your class project. See chapter 3 for more information on the procedures involved in this step.

Conclusion: Study Design Planning

Once you have decided what topic you want to study, you plan your study. Part 1 of this chapter has covered the following steps you need to follow in this planning process:

• decide what type of study you will do (i.e., experimental, quasi-experimental, non- experimental);
• decide on what data collection method you will use (i.e., survey, observation, or already existing data);
• operationalize your variables into measureable concepts;
• determine what type of sample you will use (probability or non-probability);
• pilot test your methods; and
• get IRB approval.

At that point, you are ready to commence collecting your data, which is the topic of the next section in this chapter.