Qualitative method

4.1. Qualitative method

Qualitative method is designed to pursue an exploration of the lives, opinions and actions of people or groups, and is clearly sensitive to the social world. It involves words rather than numbers (Chambliss et.al: 223). As Bryman (2008: 366) states, qualitative method is often characterized by an inductive relationship between theory and research, and an interpretivist position - implying an understanding of the social world through interpreting its participants. This differs from quantitative method, mainly taking on a deductive approach. Qualitative method seeks in-depth information – usually using smaller numbers than what is common in quantitative research. The goal is, however, still to make valid inferences – meaning that the qualitative researcher has to be aware of the methodological issues arising from the choice of a qualitative study (King et.al 1994: 229). Qualitative research also has to be careful not to be “theory-less”, i.e. that it strives to explain on what theoretical basis it was formed and how the data was gathered leading to the conclusions (Diefenbach 2008: 878).

Qualitative research interviews are, together with observation, commonly used methods within qualitative research. The interviews are based on the social interaction between the interviewee and the interviewer. It is important that the interviewer has

46

significant knowledge of the theme of the interview, in order to be able to ask well-formulated and effective follow-up questions (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009: 99). How the researcher chooses to define the research question in qualitative method varies in terms of how explicit the question is formed (Bryman 2008: 371). However, conducting interviews will undoubtedly expand the interviewer’s knowledge and perspective, and may thus help to develop or change the original notions about the research – another important feature in qualitative research (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009: 128).

4.1.1. Key features and criticism of qualitative method

Qualitative research has tended to be described as merely what quantitative research is not, which fails to lead to new understandings (Bryman 2008: 367). Qualitative method and empirical research has repeatedly been criticized from a methodological perspective. Certain elements should indeed be discussed when choosing a qualitative approach for this research, to conclude whether the choice of this particular method is justified. Initially, the most pressing issue regarding the improving of data quality is to record and report how the specific data has been generated (King et.al 1994: 23).

Reporting, in short, should be done so that the information is available to others wishing to apply the particular methods (King et.al 1994: 23). The researcher is responsible for who gets a larger say in the qualitative study, and what should be included and consequently excluded. This leads to the natural understanding that two researchers would never come up with the exact same results in a qualitative study, as the researcher him/herself is crucial for the making of the research (Diefenbach 2008:

885). Still, as noted, reporting and recording how the data has been gathered secures that a degree of replicability is possible.

A common criticism of qualitative method has been that such research is biased due to the researcher's personal perceptions. Qualitative research, thus, is seen as too subjective (Bryman 2008: 391). Naturally, it has to be taken into account that the researcher has his or her own perspectives, biases and prejudices. The so-called human factor, that the researcher affects the research with own views, is however evident in all research – although it is clear that qualitative research is more prone to subjectiveness (Diefenbach 2008: 875-7). Still, this problem has to be dealt with in all

47

social science, and the question becomes, rather than removing it, how to decrease the subjectiveness as much as possible. Another criticism has involved the often numerous changes of the research question – which in quantitative research may prove to be of large, negative significance. However, as Diefenbach notes, qualitative research is explorative. This means that the research question is not always a known factor at the outset of the research, and may change or develop as the research goes on. In this sense, changing the research question becomes a sign of the research progressing, signaling that the researcher has gotten closer to what he or she really wants to investigate (Diefenbach 2008: 877). Whether the collection of the data is really representative, is another question which has attracted attention regarding qualitative method. The researcher may be criticized of merely choosing a sample of his or her own interest. However, in qualitative research, one does not have to select the data

“objectively” - only ensure that the subjects selected are appropriate for the investigation. The unit of investigation, thus, is what counts in qualitative research (Diefenbach 2008: 878). When it comes to generalization, the question arises whether a qualitative sample can be generalizable to the rest of the population. This criticism, however, fails to hit its target, as “... the findings of qualitative research are to generalize to theory rather than to population” (Bryman 2008: 391). Some researchers have also claimed that a degree of generalizability is in fact possible, implying a so-called “moderatum generalization” (Bryman 2008: 392). One should, lastly, not forget that also a great number of similarities between quantitative and qualitative research exists, despite the numerous examples highlighting their differences. Bryman (2008:

394-5) identifies both methods as focusing on data reduction, answering research questions, relating data analysis and relevant literature as well as seeking transparency.

There are a number of elements which have to be taken into consideration before conducting the actual research. Amongst them, as far as possible to ensure that the research is valid and reliable, that the selection of interviewees has been sampled with caution and that the research is meeting ethical standards, are vital. Before proceeding to the choice of interview as a method, these considerations will be further discussed.

4.2. Validity

48

How to increase the validity of the research is a central aspect for any researcher.

Meaning that we measure what we think we measure, validity is important to maximize the effects of the study (King et.al 1994: 25). One part of this is the so-called measurement validity, referring to whether indicators of measurement are measuring what the researcher actually intends to measure (Chambliss & Schutt 2010:

12). Another aspect is internal validity. This will occur whenever one can draw a correct conclusion that A leads to B. What causes what is a central focus point for researcher, which leads internal validity to be of great importance to scholars (Chambliss & Schutt 2010: 14).

A related and equally important concept is generalizability or external validity. Here, one speaks of the ability to draw general conclusions for a whole group, population or setting. If one draws a sample, for instance, it is possible to generalize results back to the group which the sample was drawn from. However, drawing conclusions from this sample based on other groups, is something a researcher should be careful about (Chambliss & Schutt 2010: 14). As discussed above, generalizability is often problematic when speaking of qualitative method, due to the often small samples and case studies (Bryman 2008: 383). The researcher should keep in mind that the research questions may have alternative explanations than the hypothesis – and that the depended variable may be affected by values outside, which are elements not taken into consideration (King et.al 1994: 222). Such spurious effects are of great importance to minimize as much as possible. Notably, all qualitative researchers do not apply the criterion of validity and reliability to qualitative research, as they are of the opinion that these measures were made mainly for quantitative purposes and are thus not applicable (Bryman 2008: 383).

4.3. Reliability

Having looked at different types of validity, one should proceed to assess reliability. If a measure is reliable, it is less affected by what one calls random error. A concept is reliable if the results are consistent and do not change greatly if the circumstances stay the same (Chambliss & Schutt 2010: 96; King et.al 1994: 25). This is not validity – as the results may be the same, but wrong, when they are being measured. This

49

underlines the importance of obtaining both validity and reliability (Chambliss &

Schutt 2010: 97). By securing a large degree of both validity and reliability, the researcher can ensure that the research is less error-prone. A common remark has been that qualitative research is hard to replicate because of its unstructured nature (Bryman 2008: 391). Problems may include that interviewees may die or disappear or that observations altogether cannot be replicated (King et.al 1994: 26). So-called external reliability can be hard to obtain in qualitative research, as one cannot freeze the social setting in which the research has taken place (Bryman 2008: 376). Indeed, ensuring that the data and analysis is replicable is a key concern for any researcher. Here, the entire reasoning behind the process and the conclusions should be able to be traced (King et.al 1994: 26).

4.4. Operationalization

The concepts of the research have to be conceptualized and made measurable (Chambliss & Schutt 2010: 73). In order to conceptualize, one needs a clear definition of what a concept entails. Chambliss and Schutt (2010: 75) states that a concept contains a “… mental image that summarizes a set of similar observations, feelings, or ideas”. One single concept may, however, entail different meanings. One should keep in mind that definitions about concepts need to be explicit (Chambliss & Schutt 2010:

75). For this particular thesis, the concepts “minority rights”, “identity awareness” and

“Europeanization” are in need of operationalization in order to clarify what the concepts mean and make it understandable for the interviewees.