Qualitative Research Analysis

Qualitative research explains phenomena and data through the use of descriptions by using words to both examine and interpret observations to find meaning, form and order in relationships. It is a constructed reality based on relationships, interpretation and cultural meaning. People experience reality in their own life as their reality, based on how they interpret life (Sarantakos, 2005).

Qualitative research grew out of a divide that developed between researchers

questioning the ability of quantitative methods to answer research questions. This lead to the paradigm wars between quantitative methods and its limitations and those seeking deeper, richer data (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). Qualitative methods developed in the mid twentieth century and rose in popularity especially in the social sciences in the 1960s and ‘70s (Guba, 1990). The Chicago School of sociology popularised it and it was adopted by the field of anthropology (Barley, 1989; Denizen,

& Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative research began as a reaction to the post positivist traditions of quantitative research because it provides a deeper understanding of complex phenomena such as culture and group life (Shah & Corley, 2006). The qualitative method grew swiftly in reaction to the hard fact and the use of exact figures from the quantitative sector which dominated research and is referred to as the humanist model of research (Miller & Brewer, 2003).

Qualitative research focuses on the standard of how good something is, stressing quality not quantity, or how much or how many. It provides a psychosocial meaning, such as why a person votes a certain way versus how many people vote that way. This is seen as one of its negatives in some sectors, with governments, and parts of the community preferring hard data with facts and figures over rich statements (Miller, & Brewer, 2003).

Qualitative research became multi-faceted as it rose in popularity, and now has wide diversity. It sits between the more traditional method of quantitative research and the newer mixed method model, and has sound characteristics (Creswell, 2003). Some of its characteristics are: it is interpretive, allowing the researcher to develop a description or picture of the natural setting; however, it also includes theories such as

constructivism, critical theory and feminism. In this regard it incorporates a wide field with many facets including case studies and observations to study behaviour.

Qualitative approaches can include ethnographies (fieldwork) where the researcher studies an intact group of people in a natural setting, referring back to the early qualitative research of anthropologists such as Margaret Mead in Samoa (Denizen, & Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative research can bring out an individual’s view on subjects and provide the researcher with a better understanding of the phenomena. Qualitative approaches all share common features, based on a researcher developing an

understanding of a phenomenon through the participants (Shah, & Corley, 2006). It allows the researcher to be a part of the process by experiencing it and developing a better understanding of phenomena (Shah, & Corley, 2006). Therefore, the researcher conducts the research with the participants and is a part of it while witnessing the

reaction and feedback of the group. It allows for the research and understanding of individuals’ attitudes and behaviour over time and is important in providing this

understanding (Neuman, 2012). Qualitative research lets a researcher dig deep into the reasons why people do things, explaining their choice (Miles & Hubermann, 1994). Therefore, by amassing data, experiencing it while being immersed in its collection, a picture emerges of people’s views and behaviours which may not be possible through other methods (Shah, & Corley, 2006). Qualitative research provides this based on the experiences of members in a study sample in their own words, using real world

examples (Daly, 2005).

3.2.1 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

A number of approaches are used in obtaining data in qualitative research. These include studying individuals through direct narratives, letting what is being said direct the process (Thomas & Nelson, 2001). Qualitative methods include tools such as field observations and case studies which explore processes or events, allowing access to the attributes of a culture. These methods allow access to, and understanding of a culture, its setting and the experiences of its members. Researchers can understand the meaning of the experience to those involved, linking the setting with the experience (Creswell, 2003; Thomas & Nelson, 2001). It gives an understanding and meaning with no preconceived viewpoint and is inductive, with theory generated from the data.

One theory, grounded theory, employs this process strictly, with theory and meaning developed by data from the ground up (Nueman, 2012). Researchers can use interviews and conversations to record key issues (Glasser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory uses a number of steps (process), to examine data while looking for similar cases, noting conditions that are common or causes making them similar. Similar cases but with slightly different outcomes are sometimes compared to see where their differences lie. Differences and similarities in the data are noted, the data coded, and put into categories. A theory is then developed on data ‘grounded’ or based on data that has been through a number of iterations (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thus the researcher, through regular judgments, coding and comparing the data, develops a theory based (grounded) on analysis and its revealed meaning (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

The qualitative research approach suggests that while things are related, reality is constructed and interpreted by the individual. For example, if two people are watching a close game of football, the person who is not aligned to either side sees it as a good close game of football, while the other person whose team is losing sees the game as a loss for their team (Sarantakos, 2005). Two individuals see the same game and its components but interpret it differently. This dichotomy allows researchers to explore and develop meaning through data collected and examined from people through qualitative methods.

Qualitative data is collected using a number of tools. Interviews are the most common tool used and can be one-on one, or done in a group setting. They can include

structured interviews with scripted questions or be conducted in a more open setting using open-ended questions. They can also be conducted either face to face or on the telephone (Neuman, 1997).

Focus groups, another tool of data collection, are interviews with a small number of people in one session (Thomas & Nelson, 2001). Focus groups can obtain a wide range of data from the group in a short time and from a variety of discussion points. They also can include comments that will trigger discussion into a new, related concept providing valuable discussion of the issues.

Observation is another tool where the researcher observes the behaviour or event while taking notes or audio taping proceedings. Today the use of a digital video camera is popular because it can record and keep the information for later analysis. However, the negative side of this model is obtrusiveness. The researcher is not part of the group and may inhibit members, not allowing them to relax and be themselves. All these tools have advantages: observations allow first experiences to be noticed, while interviews allow control over the setting. However, there are limitations: the researcher may not be a good observer, while in focus groups or interviews some people are more articulate and able to explain their ideas and views better than others (Creswell, 2003).

Some qualitative research employs a panel of experts, as associated with the Delphi method and elicitation studies. When empirical data is incomplete or unclear,

researchers may employ a panel to assist in decision-making. This tool has been used for some time and can deliver greater certainty. It is relatively simple to conduct (Arkles, Mumpower, & Stewart, 1997). It consists of collecting advice and opinions of experts (panel) to resolve issues through comments on items or questions, with the researcher facilitating the process (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Masser & Foley, 1987; Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The panel can develop, rank, or reduce items, and make general comments on a survey instrument, thus adding to construct validity (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). However, it is not a main research tool, rather it supports other qualitative procedures and should not be used alone (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

3.2.2 Use of Qualitative Methods in Sport and Leisure - Social Capital Research

Historically, much of the research in leisure developed from a psychosocial view employing a positivist, quantitative focus. These included surveys and diaries to measure leisure, the experience, effects and participation (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). However, researchers such as Fine (1994), and Henderson (1991), employed

qualitative-interpretive methods at the time. Researchers in leisure have moved away from the classic positivist, quantitative models based on logic and numbers (Dupuis, (1999). This may be a result of writings by Hemingway (1999), and Kelly (1996), suggesting the need for greater depth of discussion and critical analysis in leisure research. It also coincided with a rising popularity of qualitative research methods which were seen to provide detail that was otherwise missing. Since the early 1980s, researchers have used qualitative approaches to study leisure and extract the meaning and experiences it provides (Bullock, 1983; Glancey, 1986, 1993; Harper, 1981; Howe, 1985, 1988, 1991; Hultsman & Anderson, 1991; Lee, 1990; Scott & Godbey, 1990). These studies cover a range of areas concentrating on the psychosocial makeup of leisure. Qualitative research provides insight and understanding of leisure from the individual’s viewpoint and feelings while raising questions and issues (Dupuis, 1999). This can be particularly important in analysing leisure as participation is based on the person’s free choice, often reflecting an intrinsic need and taking place in a social environment (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997).

Karla Henderson (1991), supported greater use of qualitative methods in leisure research by publishing a guide for qualitative research in leisure. Pedlar (1995), also suggested greater participant input in leisure research through the use of action research, where the respondents are brought in to the investigation to develop and implement changes (Denscombe, 2003; Sarantakos, 2005). In the 1990s, leisure

research employing qualitative methods increased by 26% as reported by the Journal of Leisure Research (Weissinger, Henderson, & Bowling, 1997). This trend is continuing and includes research such as sport and social capital (Driscoll & Wood, 1999), and sport consumer behaviour (Stewart, Smith, & Nicholson, 2003). Tont’s (2005), employed a mixed method in his work on sport and social capital, but highlighted the important detail on values provided by the use of qualitative methods. Others (Onyx & Bullen, 2001), suggest that qualitative methods provide a better understanding of a theory to the researcher which allows for better item construction.

In this study qualitative research tools, such as aspects of grounded theory, not

grounded theory per se were used with interviews, focus groups, analysis, and coding. In addition the employment of a panel of experts, often associated with Delphi model and Elicitation studies, was employed to provide significant input for scale item reduction and factor clarification (Arkles, Mumpower, & Stewart, 1997; Lindstone & Turoff, 1975).