By Kathleen M. MacQueen, PhD, MPH
FHI Senior Scientist, Behavioral and Social Sciences
How do we improve reproductive health? The answer
partially lies in enhancing our ability to transform facts and figures
into effective programs for individuals, families, communities, and
nations. Often, establishing a foundation for this transformation requires
a complementary touch: research that is qualitative as well as
quantitative.
To understand something "in truth" we
need to know not only the facts but the human experience of them.
Qualitative research is concerned with meaning: how people interpret their
experience and how they use those interpretations to guide the way they
live. Qualitative methods have been developed largely within the social
sciences, where they are key elements for field-based, observational,
descriptive, and explanatory research. For example, in-depth interviews
are used to explore topics that are defined by the researcher, while the
content of the topic is defined by the person being interviewed. In
semi-structured interviews, both the topic and its content are defined by
the researcher, but the wording and order of the questions may vary from
one interview to another. Structured interviews, in turn, maintain a
consistent wording and ordering of the questions. All three types of
interviews use a one-on-one conversational approach that gives
participants freedom to raise issues that the researcher did not
anticipate.
Focus group discussions are similar to
semi-structured interviews but involve a small group of people. The group
dynamics are often helpful for understanding social norms. Participant
observation is a method where researchers place themselves in the social
context of the people they are studying, engage in informal conversation,
and make systematic observations.
Often, two or more qualitative methods will be
combined to collect data on the same phenomenon from multiple
perspectives, or qualitative methods will be combined with quantitative
approaches. Social science research uses a design strategy called triangulation
to combine multiple methods in a way that compensates for potential bias
or error in the use of any single method.
Because it brings researchers and the people they
study together in conversation, qualitative research is often
collaborative and participatory. The research questions and study results
may be presented to the participants and their communities for comment and
discussion. Community members may help design the research or seek the
help of researchers to answer questions of their own. Such partnerships
can enrich the research design and also facilitate the translation of
research results into community action for change.
All observation is subjective, and we address this
fact through careful research design. Quantitative research tends to
address subjectivity by using tools that give replicable, reliable answers
to specific questions about some aspect of the observable world. It could
be said that quantitative research shines a single, bright spotlight in
one place. For example, the design of a clinical trial to test the
efficacy of a vaginal microbicide for preventing HIV acquisition is
strongest when it is narrowly focused on the single question of whether
women using the microbicide are less likely to become infected than women
not using the microbicide. Qualitative research, in contrast, tends to
deal with subjectivity by shining several spotlights from different
directions and assessing the amount of agreement and disagreement among
the different views. The design of a microbicide program for preventing
HIV acquisition, for example, would require information about the way
women and their partners make sexual decisions. Collection of that kind of
information is well suited to systematic qualitative inquiry; for example,
in-depth interviews with both partners that allow for a comparison of
their responses, combined with focus group discussions to understand
normative expectations about how couples make decisions.
Qualitative research often requires more targeted
sampling strategies than does quantitative research, with a focus on
determining the range of variability. For example, the strategies may seek
to identify the range of variability in the way women negotiate
contraceptive use with their partners or the kinds of options that men and
women consider culturally acceptable for resolving domestic disputes.
Sample sizes reflect the extent to which people differ from each other
with regard to the research topic. If a high degree of consensus about a
particular topic exists in a community, very few people need to be
interviewed. Conversely, when there is little consensus, more people need
to be interviewed.
Neither a quantitative nor a qualitative research
approach is inherently better. The type of information needed from a
particular study should determine which approach to use. In many
situations, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods
enhances understanding on multiple levels. The key issue is whether the
conclusions reached are ultimately derived from systematic, scientifically
sound data.
Note: Dr. MacQueen, an anthropologist, has
conducted both qualitative and quantitative research in support of
HIV-prevention clinical trials.
Copyright