Qualitative approaches

Social work researchers, along with other researchers, have debated the appropriateness of qualitative versus quantitative research methods. Qualitative research has been described as attempting to capture people's definitions and descriptions of events; in contrast, quantitative research aims to count and measure things (Berg 1989, cited in Minichiello et al. 2000: 9). The choice of method is influenced by the assumptions that a researcher makes about science, people and the social world, and in turn the method used will influence what the researcher sees. According to Grbich:

Qualitative research is concerned with describing patterns of behaviour and processes of interaction as well as revealing the meanings, values and intentions of a person’s life experiences. Data collection is based in an interpretative (power sharing) model, it is creative and

idiosyncratic and utilises the techniques of interviewing…informed by various theoretical perspectives (Grbich 2000).

Padgett identifies the paradigmatic assumptions and approaches of qualitative methods as: inductive; naturalistic; having an absence of controlled

conditions; an open system; an holistic manner using ‘thick’ description; using the researcher as the instrument of data collection; and allowing categories to emerge from the data analysis (Padgett 1998: 3). Similarly, Shaw and Gould identify qualitative research as: focusing on ‘everyday life’; holistic; fore- fronting ‘member categories’; interpretive; using the researcher as instrument; and reflexive (Shaw & Gould 2001: 7–8).

Methodologically, qualitative researchers are not concerned with assigning numbers to observations and transcripts. Rather, data from semi/unstructured interviews or participant observation are studied for themes in the natural language of the participants:

Qualitative methods allow you to gain access to motives, meanings, actions and reactions of people in the context of their daily lives without relying on predetermined and fixed applications of the predictive and prescriptive requirements of quantitative methodologies. The focus is not to reveal causal relationships but discover the nature of

phenomena as humanly experienced (Minichiello et al. 2000: 11).

In contrast, quantitative researchers view participants as subjects who supply data that has been pre-ordered by the researcher and would argue that social facts can only be explained by other social facts, often in terms different from those employed by the participants (Minichiello et al. 2000). The latter's interpretations of their own situation often stands outside the analysis or may play only a small part; as the researcher views participants as having a ‘blurry understanding of their social world’, with the researcher needing to provide accurate accounts of what is really going on, using tools of science (i.e. giving precise definitions and developing measurements/procedures to identify

regularities in the research) (Minichiello et al. 2000). Of particular interest to quantitative researchers are explanations that offer causes:

Quantitative research is concerned with measuring the magnitude, size or extent of a phenomenon. Data collection derives from a scientific, positivist, cause effect model…Prediction and generalisation are the desired outcome…(Grbich 2000).

Structured interviews are predominantly used in surveys or opinion polls and consist predominantly of close–ended questions. There is an assumption that the researcher controls the flow in a one-way process (Roberts 1988, cited in Minchiello et al. 2000: 64). Many researchers argue that such methods do not adequately deal with differences between objects and people and that there are better ways to study social reality (Taylor & Bogdan 1984; Oakley 1988; Roberts 1988). Semi and unstructured interviews are said to be one-such way. Semi structured interviews are considered suitable for in depth interviewing directed towards understanding participants' ‘perspectives on their lives, experiences or situations as expressed in their own words’ (Bogdan 1984, cited in Minchiello et al. 2000: 68). Interview schedules for semi-structured interviews are usually developed around themes that the researcher wishes to examine, without necessarily having fixed wording or ordering. This allows flexibility and assists the establishment of rapport between researcher and participant so that they converse in a minimally controlled exchange, whilst still maintaining a focus on the experiences and attitudes relevant to the research area (Minchiello et al. 2000).

Qualitative research does not seek to establish generalisable findings, so sample size is less important than in qualitative research. This is the domain of probability sampling, that is, random surveys of entire population groups often involving thousands of participants and totally unsuitable to this

research. However, aiming for a diversity of participants influences the sample size, for example, participants from urban and rural areas, ranging in age; culturally and linguistically diverse, indigenous and able or disabled. In-depth interviewing is time intensive and this also affects the size of the sample, as

does the concept of saturation where no additional data adds to the themes developing (Padgett 1998: 69; Minichiello et al. 2000: 161–2). In this study saturation occurred after about 30 interviews. However, further interviews were sought to ensure specific marginalised groups were included, which resulted in a total of 53 participants.

Qualitative research has been criticised both by the methodological right, primarily in relation to statistical and experimental rigour, and more recently by postmodernists who argue there can be no objective knowledge (Flinders & Mills 1993: 218–229). In the past, concerns focused on the theoretical bases of qualitative findings, whereas current concerns focus on the underlying theory of knowledge (Flinders & Mills 1993: 218). However debates over method are an ongoing social phenomena rather than a serious

epistemological concern, and despite postmodern concerns it is still possible to ‘find out things about social life in ways that are more or less good enough’ (Flinders & Mills 1993: 219).

Qualitative research has also been criticised for lacking rigour, being

atheoretical, ungeneralisable, methodologically weak, methodologically-led, anecdotal, mystifying and failing to produce findings that are useful (Shaw & Gould 2001: 5). Numerous social work writers have countered these criticisms (see Riessman 1994; Padgett 1998; Shaw & Gould 2001). Shaw and Gould (2001: 15) focus on how qualitative research both stems from and addresses issues of social work values, knowledge and skills, while Riessman states qualitative research supports:

…values of decreasing inequalities and increasing life choices of all citizens by documenting inequalities in lives and analysing precisely how social structures and social policies enhance and restrict

opportunities for individuals and groups (Riessman, in Shaw & Gould 2001: 73-82).

This provides social workers with a ‘contextualised usefulness’ rather than ‘universal generalisations’ (Shaw & Gould 2001: 21).

Implications of the conceptual framework on the method

As this study aimed to learn from women’s experiences—that is, their

perceptions of who and what enabled them to leave a male partner who had assaulted them and how they were able to establish a new life—a feminist standpoint utilising a qualitative approach was deemed appropriate.

Advocates for women experiencing assault from a male partner stress the need for research that focuses on women’s own stories. They ‘emphasise that a complete understanding of women’s victimization must include qualitative analyses of accounts in their own words’ (Kurtz 1989, in Jasinski & Williams 1998: 50). The method needs to be respectful of women’s social context, their different life experiences and ways of knowing. Given the feminist and social work theoretical framework of this study, qualitative research methods were deemed congruent for the exploration of women’s stories and the

documentation of their experiences:

Because qualitative approaches offer the potential for representing human agency…they provide support for the liberatory project of social work (Riessman 1994: xv).