Qualitative Health Research

http://qhr.sagepub.com/

Qualitative Research Is Not a Modification of Quantitative Research

Janice M. Morse Qual Health Res 2005 15: 1003 DOI: 10.1177/1049732305280771 The online version of this article can be found at: http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/15/8/1003.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Health Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://qhr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://qhr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from qhr.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

QUALITATIVE Morse / EDITORIAL HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2005

10.1177/1049732305280771

Editorial
Qualitative Research Is Not a Modification of Quantitative Research

was dismayed to see when reviewing an undergraduate research textone of the enlightened ones that give qualitative research equal time in the curriculumthat qualitative inquiry was being taught in parallel to quantitative research. In fact, this text was intended for students learning qualitative and quantitative in the same research class. The text, with an underlying philosophy of equality, presented the student with one chapter on quantitative and then one on the same topic in qualitative. For instance, students were supposed to be taught sampling for quantitative research, then sampling for qualitative, then move on to some other topic in the research process, learning first quantitative conventions, then qualitative. This seems to be rather like learning about several cultures at once in an anthropology classby discussing first a particular belief, custom, or way of doing something in one culture, then the same in a second culture, with the discussion of each quite removed from the cultural context or from other norms and practices. But it also raises the question of how qualitative inquiry should be taught. It forces us reflect on how we actually learned qualitative inquiry. Most of us were probably first schooled in quantitative inquiry. In North America, even today, quantitative inquiry is considered essential in undergraduate and graduate programs; qualitative inquiry is considered a luxury, something to be added to the curriculum only if there is space and if there is time. In this light, the equal time philosophy in the above research text makes it appear enlightened. Some of us had minimal formal training in qualitative work, took a notebook, and headed for the field. Others may have had an extensive number of classes on qualitative inquirymuch theory and little practicebefore working on our own. Others, the lucky ones, may have had both, classroom theory and mentoring with a senior researcher on a project, as preparation for their own research. There is no doubt that the resources for those who wish to learn qualitative inquiry have changed. There are now numerous texts available on most topics and methods, of various quality, and differing learning philosophies. There are workshops and short courses available for those who are willing to make the effort to learn. And there is usually support within most departments from at least a few faculty doing qualitative research. In other words, there are ample opportunities for those who wish to become good qualitative researchers, should they desire to do so. We should, therefore, be moving forward in great strides, but there are indicators that we are not out of the woods yet. How, for instance, can such a widely used text introduce such a peculiar approach to teaching qualitative inquiry? Why has

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, Vol. 15 No. 8, October 2005 1003-1005 DOI: 10.1177/1049732305280771 2005 Sage Publications

1003

Downloaded from qhr.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

1004

QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH / October 2005

this not been questioned by reviewers and those of us using the text? What are the assumptions underlying the various modes of learning qualitative research? The following are simply my best guess.

Assumption 1: There Is a Clear Link Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

One is the converse of the other. Qualitative research is simply another way of doing things, a different way of getting to the same goal. From this perspective, if you understand sampling quantitatively, then you simply learn new strategies to understand qualitative research. This stymies me. I cannot understand how a quantitative researcher could possibly appreciate qualitative sampling strategies without understanding qualitative analytic processes and goals. Furthermore, as the principles and rationale of qualitative sampling directly contradict the principles of quantitative sampling, direct comparison of the two (and learning the quantitative first) makes qualitative methods appear weak, easy, and simplistic.

Assumption 2: Knowing Quantitative Research Helps You Learn and/or Understand Qualitative
These folks believe that if they are good quantitative researchers, understanding, doing, and evaluating qualitative research is just a matter of learning a few more rules or strategies. They do not realize that qualitative inquiry is a whole new way of thinking, that qualitative strategies do not stand alone, and that qualitative research methods are cohesive and consistent sets of procedures that cannot and should not be separated from the whole. I do not believe you can become a qualitative researcher operating from a comparative framework, bouncing off and simply making adjustments to quantitative norms and principles. Understanding quantitative research helps me explain qualitative research to quantitative researchers, but it does not help me do qualitative research.

Assumption 3: Quantitative Researchers Can Learn Qualitative Research Simply by Trying It

Overheard at a workshop from the row behind me:
Have you tried this yet, Marg? Yes, and I must say I am getting very good at it!

Can one learn qualitative inquiry by trial and error? Perhaps, but it must be a very slow and unnecessarily painful process. I believe we are most vulnerable to quantitative qualitative research in the areas of mixed-method designs. Here, qualitative components have often been added on to meet RFP (request for proposals) requirements or at the urging of a committee during the revision of a proposal.

Downloaded from qhr.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Morse / EDITORIAL

1005

But are these research efforts, or the efforts of researchers trying it, any good? I do not knowhow can I know? I only know that QHR has a very high rejection rate, and most often these rejections occur because of methodological problems: The sample is not saturated or has been randomly selected; a framework has been used inappropriately; the methods approach, or the researchers do not carefully adhere to the method being used; or the writing is distinctly quantitative, with many things counted, and so forth, when counting is meaningless. All shades of quantitative approaches to qualitative inquiry. There may be other problems not listed here, but one more time, the onus is on us, on qualitative researchers, to monitor and to control the teaching of our methods and how these methods are communicated to others. QHR has a started a new section, Teaching Matters, to provide a forum for such discussion, and I hope this editorial will urge some of you to address these important issues. Perhaps I am preaching to the choir, but our journal can at least help us become conscious of all of these important issues, look about, become aware of what is happening in our own institutions, with our own students, and proactively mold our own discipline. The first message we need to give, loud and clear, is that qualitative inquiry is not a variation of quantitative research. JANICE M. MORSE Editor

Downloaded from qhr.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010