Qualitative Research

Finding a definition of qualitative research that is sufficiently exhaustive and circumscriptional can be a challenge. The qualitative approach to research is in some cases (no pun intended) regarded as the opposite, or indeed the alternative to, quantitative research. The two positions have historically been thought of as opposite poles in the social sciences, each with its group of adherent followers regarding their position as the most scientifically correct alternative (Grønmo, 1996). Others point to

the philosophical incommensurability between the two (Yin, 1994)⁸. Alternatively, and also more contemporarily, it is possible to assume a more pragmatic position to the different approaches. Grønmo (ibid.) distinguishes qualitative research from quantitative first and foremost regarding the characteristics and nature of the data collected and analysed. The characteristics of data are “quantitative if they are expressed in the form of pure numbers, or terms referring quantity (for example many/few, more/less, most/least, and so forth). Data that aren’t expressed in this way are qualitative” (Grønmo, 1996, p. 74, my translation). Strauss & Corbin (1998) offer a similar definition of qualitative research labelling it “any type of research that produces findings not arrived on by statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (p.11). In practise, the dichotomy may be superficial, and may even inhibit and limit the quality of the research (Savenye & Robinson, 1996) if one dedicates oneself exclusively to one position. Yin (1994) states that case studies do not preclude the use of quantitative evidence, and others (e.g. Patton, 1987) states that there is a recent increase in the use of multiple methods including both qualitative and quantitative data.

In comparing the advantages of the two methodological approaches, it is often claimed that quantitative methods have their strength in describing a social phenomenon on a “high” analytical level, allowing for statistical aggregation and comparison of data on a general level (Patton, 1987). The qualitative approach is frequently cited as “thick descriptions” of situated phenomenon, providing in-depth and detailed descriptions (ibid.).

Leaving the issue of qualitative as compared to quantitative research, characteristics of qualitative research are searched for. Savenye and Robinson (1997) point out what they see as the methods typically associated with qualitative research, and they include interviews, observation, case studies, surveys, document, and historical analysis. Furthermore, they identify several characteristics of qualitative research.

“Qualitative research (…) is conducted in a natural setting, without intentionally manipulating the environment. It typically involves highly

detailed and rich descriptions of human behaviours and opinions. The perspective is that humans construct their own reality, and an understanding of what they do may be based on why they believe they do it. There is allowance for the “multiple realities” individuals thus might construct in an environment.

The research questions often evolve as the study does, because the researcher wants to know “what is happening”, and may not want to bias the study by focusing the investigation too narrowly. The researcher becomes part of the study by interacting closely with the subjects of the study. The researcher attempts to be open to the subjects’ perceptions of “what is”; that is, the researchers are bound by the values and worldviews of the subjects. In qualitative research, it is not necessarily assumed that the findings of one study may be generalised easily into other settings. There is a concern for the uniqueness of a particular setting and participants” (Savenye & Robinson, 1996, p. 1172).

Research in natural settings is often, apart from quantitative approaches, contrasted to conducting experiments, where peripheral circumstances are attempted controlled, and variance in results upon manipulating a number of variables is measured.

Silverman (1993) points out that although there are several traditions within qualitative research, they all “share commitment to naturally occurring data, and enquiry in naturally occurring settings” (p. 23), or in other words a dedication toward studying the phenomenon in situ.

The use of qualitative methodologies within Information Systems research has recently come into use. According to Hughes et. al. (1994) and Harper (1998), ethnography is also gaining ground within the community of CSCW, for both design and evaluation purposes. Although it still is more of a promising than a proven tool, there are several reasons to employ an ethnographic methodology if one is attempting to understand the nature of work. Part of the argument is that the development of distributed computing and networking technology into everyday use, necessitates

“new methods for analysing the collaborative, hence social, character of work and its activities” (Hughes, et. al., 1994, p. 429). In other words, the inherently collective nature of work requires descriptive tools that regards work as just that – a social phenomenon. It is further stated that ethnography is a tool that is suitable for this

purpose, as it is concerned with providing descriptions of social actors within specific contexts.

Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) take a liberal position in defining ethnography on account of the diversity of the research performed under the more general term, or collective umbrella of qualitative research. Ethnography refers primarily to:

“[A] particular method or set of methods. In its most characteristic form it involves the researcher participating, overtly or covertly, in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions – in fact, collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research.” (Hammersley &

Atkinson, 1995, p. 1)

Hammersley and Atkinson’s definition focuses on the tools and methods of ethnography. Additionally, one may make explicit the perspective that the goal of ethnographic research is understanding the world as the subjects of the ethnographic research project understand it (Harper, 2000), implying that one needs to understand the context and circumstances for the activities under scrutiny.

This is the issue also for Hine (2000) in her attempt to develop a methodology for studying computer-mediated interaction. The adaptivity of ethnomethodology is held as an advantage in describing and reflecting on the contexts of the Internet culture, and on the methodology in itself. The two possible ways of viewing the Internet as a place where one can undertake ethnographic fieldwork are either viewing it as a culture in itself or as a cultural artefact. The dichotomization is introduced as a tool for thinking about the phenomenon rather than as an exhaustive description. Jones (1999), in addressing the fluent nature of computer-mediated communication, makes a similar point in saying that the positions of being “digital” or not is a matter of perception rather than a dichotomy. The essential issue, it seems, is describing the way the historical and contemporary development has influenced the way we perceive the Internet.

A reference is made to the methodological implications of Activity Theory, treated in chapter 2 on theoretical aspects of the study. The focus on context, it has been argued, is essential in gaining an understanding of activities, as they are embedded in the cultural and social history that has been important aspects of the development of the activity. Nardi (1996) claims that the methodological implications of Activity Theory are to be engaged in the activity studied for a long enough time to identify and understand the objects and objectives of the subjects in the activity, and that broad patterns of activity carry more descriptive power than narrow ones. Further, a varied set of data gathering techniques is important as well as a commitment to understanding the phenomenon from the point of view of the subjects in the activity.