Over the last decade, the use of approaches such as those suggested by Koeske (1980), have been increasing in published research. Of these qualitative
approaches, some have been developed outside the discipline of psychology; for example ethnomethodology has been developed in the discipline of anthropology. Other qualitative methods have been developed within circumscribed areas of psychology, including market research where they are widely employed. The objective of qualitative methods is to gain an understanding of the meaning of the statements of those interviewed or the actions of those being observed.
The debate as to the 'scientific validity' of this type of research still continues (Henwood and Nicholson, 1995; Gillett, 1995; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1995; Morgan, 1996; Stevenson and Cooper, 1997; Sherrard, 1997). As part of this debate, a number of writers (Gabriel, 1990; Ashworth, 1987; Hirschmann,
1986) have pointed out that qualitative methodology is as open to critical evaluation as is quantitative. Critical analysis in qualitative methodology is achieved through the use of a collection of techniques known as 'critical relativism' (Anderson, 1986). The essence of this is to ask what were the ideologies and values behind the research, how the findings have been produced, and by what criteria they have been and need to be judged. The development of credible answers to these questions depend upon maintaining three 'information trails'. The first records aspects of the planning and collection of the data, the second the interviewees' statements, and the third the methods used in the analysis of the data. These records should be open to investigation by others so that they may make an informed judgement as to how the conclusions of the study were arrived at.
In quantitative approaches, critical analysis is considered under the criteria of reliability, objectivity and validity; in qualitative approaches the humanistic criteria of credibility, confirmability, transferability, and dependability are seen as more appropriate. Presenting the interviewees with an interpretation of their statements so as to obtain feedback from their reactions, tests credibility and information from feedback can then be incorporated as additional data. Confirmability involves checks by others of the records and interpretations made by the researcher, while transferability refers to the similarity found in different groups or individuals. Similarity is of course a subjective judgement as no two individuals or groups will be identical in their analysis of their experiences, and the conclusion that similarity or a consistency of findings has been achieved is an interpretation that should be open to the other validity checks. Finally, dependability is the qualitative equivalent to the quantitative concept of reliability. It refers to the attempt to show that the conclusions of the study represent a stable construction of events rather than one that is idiosyncratic. This is usually achieved by the use of more than one interviewer, but the presentation of a selection of the raw transcribed data also allows checks to be made.
In-depth studies with small groups of respondents may be criticised for lack of transferability. The focus of these studies however is on what has happened to the particular group of people, rather than whether or not the patterns and processes of that group are representative of all members of that class of individual. This makes it essential to define and describe the characteristics of those providing the data, and the population from which they were drawn, so
that cross-comparisons with other groups may be made to examine transferability. In this way, variables that may result in different findings can be identified. Transferability can not be automatically assumed on the basis of sampling, but has to be established according to theory and the use of devices that are somewhat similar to quantitative research. These devices may involve extension of the study by increasing the number of the respondents, searches for contrasting cases (negative or extreme instances) and the subdivision of respondents into rational and/or theoretically identified sets. These devices are used at a different stage in qualitative than in quantitative research; in qualitative methodology they are part of the analysis and therefore occur within the on going research, whereas in quantitative methodology they are incorporated at the planning stage.
Research should not be evaluated on the particular type of method employed, but on the basis of the appropriateness of the method to the phenomenon under investigation and to the research aims. The hallmark of qualitative methodology research is that it attempts to go beyond "how much" to report the most meaningful qualities of events; the central interest is the meaning of what is said. Rather than the deductive approach of quantitative methods, general conclusions are drawn from a network of meanings by an inductive process of reasoning.
It was clear that a qualitative approach was the method that would allow a better insight into the meanings of the experiences of women growing up with a chronic disorder. As Strauss and Corbin (1990) have pointed out, although
most research places the emphasis on one method, it is possible that the aims may best be served by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods dependent upon the questions being asked.