research questions in a qualitative study

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• Product Demos
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories
• Artificial Intelligence

Market Research

• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Qualitative Research Questions

Try Qualtrics for free

How to write qualitative research questions.

11 min read Here’s how to write effective qualitative research questions for your projects, and why getting it right matters so much.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is a blanket term covering a wide range of research methods and theoretical framing approaches. The unifying factor in all these types of qualitative study is that they deal with data that cannot be counted. Typically this means things like people’s stories, feelings, opinions and emotions , and the meanings they ascribe to their experiences.

Qualitative study is one of two main categories of research, the other being quantitative research. Quantitative research deals with numerical data – that which can be counted and quantified, and which is mostly concerned with trends and patterns in large-scale datasets.

What are research questions?

Research questions are questions you are trying to answer with your research. To put it another way, your research question is the reason for your study, and the beginning point for your research design. There is normally only one research question per study, although if your project is very complex, you may have multiple research questions that are closely linked to one central question.

A good qualitative research question sums up your research objective. It’s a way of expressing the central question of your research, identifying your particular topic and the central issue you are examining.

Research questions are quite different from survey questions, questions used in focus groups or interview questions. A long list of questions is used in these types of study, as opposed to one central question. Additionally, interview or survey questions are asked of participants, whereas research questions are only for the researcher to maintain a clear understanding of the research design.

Research questions are used in both qualitative and quantitative research , although what makes a good research question might vary between the two.

In fact, the type of research questions you are asking can help you decide whether you need to take a quantitative or qualitative approach to your research project.

Discover the fundamentals of qualitative research

Quantitative vs. qualitative research questions

Writing research questions is very important in both qualitative and quantitative research, but the research questions that perform best in the two types of studies are quite different.

Quantitative research questions

Quantitative research questions usually relate to quantities, similarities and differences.

It might reflect the researchers’ interest in determining whether relationships between variables exist, and if so whether they are statistically significant. Or it may focus on establishing differences between things through comparison, and using statistical analysis to determine whether those differences are meaningful or due to chance.

• How much? This kind of research question is one of the simplest. It focuses on quantifying something. For example:

How many Yoruba speakers are there in the state of Maine?

• What is the connection?

This type of quantitative research question examines how one variable affects another.

For example:

How does a low level of sunlight affect the mood scores (1-10) of Antarctic explorers during winter?

• What is the difference? Quantitative research questions in this category identify two categories and measure the difference between them using numerical data.

Do white cats stay cooler than tabby cats in hot weather?

If your research question fits into one of the above categories, you’re probably going to be doing a quantitative study.

Qualitative research questions

Qualitative research questions focus on exploring phenomena, meanings and experiences.

Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research isn’t about finding causal relationships between variables. So although qualitative research questions might touch on topics that involve one variable influencing another, or looking at the difference between things, finding and quantifying those relationships isn’t the primary objective.

In fact, you as a qualitative researcher might end up studying a very similar topic to your colleague who is doing a quantitative study, but your areas of focus will be quite different. Your research methods will also be different – they might include focus groups, ethnography studies, and other kinds of qualitative study.

A few example qualitative research questions:

• What is it like being an Antarctic explorer during winter?
• What are the experiences of Yoruba speakers in the USA?
• How do white cat owners describe their pets?

Qualitative research question types

Marshall and Rossman (1989) identified 4 qualitative research question types, each with its own typical research strategy and methods.

• Exploratory questions

Exploratory questions are used when relatively little is known about the research topic. The process researchers follow when pursuing exploratory questions might involve interviewing participants, holding focus groups, or diving deep with a case study.

• Explanatory questions

With explanatory questions, the research topic is approached with a view to understanding the causes that lie behind phenomena. However, unlike a quantitative project, the focus of explanatory questions is on qualitative analysis of multiple interconnected factors that have influenced a particular group or area, rather than a provable causal link between dependent and independent variables.

• Descriptive questions

As the name suggests, descriptive questions aim to document and record what is happening. In answering descriptive questions , researchers might interact directly with participants with surveys or interviews, as well as using observational studies and ethnography studies that collect data on how participants interact with their wider environment.

• Predictive questions

Predictive questions start from the phenomena of interest and investigate what ramifications it might have in the future. Answering predictive questions may involve looking back as well as forward, with content analysis, questionnaires and studies of non-verbal communication (kinesics).

Why are good qualitative research questions important?

We know research questions are very important. But what makes them so essential? (And is that question a qualitative or quantitative one?)

Getting your qualitative research questions right has a number of benefits.

• It defines your qualitative research project Qualitative research questions definitively nail down the research population, the thing you’re examining, and what the nature of your answer will be.This means you can explain your research project to other people both inside and outside your business or organization. That could be critical when it comes to securing funding for your project, recruiting participants and members of your research team, and ultimately for publishing your results. It can also help you assess right the ethical considerations for your population of study.
• It maintains focus Good qualitative research questions help researchers to stick to the area of focus as they carry out their research. Keeping the research question in mind will help them steer away from tangents during their research or while they are carrying out qualitative research interviews. This holds true whatever the qualitative methods are, whether it’s a focus group, survey, thematic analysis or other type of inquiry.That doesn’t mean the research project can’t morph and change during its execution – sometimes this is acceptable and even welcome – but having a research question helps demarcate the starting point for the research. It can be referred back to if the scope and focus of the project does change.
• It helps make sure your outcomes are achievable

Because qualitative research questions help determine the kind of results you’re going to get, it helps make sure those results are achievable. By formulating good qualitative research questions in advance, you can make sure the things you want to know and the way you’re going to investigate them are grounded in practical reality. Otherwise, you may be at risk of taking on a research project that can’t be satisfactorily completed.

Developing good qualitative research questions

All researchers use research questions to define their parameters, keep their study on track and maintain focus on the research topic. This is especially important with qualitative questions, where there may be exploratory or inductive methods in use that introduce researchers to new and interesting areas of inquiry. Here are some tips for writing good qualitative research questions.

1. Keep it specific

Broader research questions are difficult to act on. They may also be open to interpretation, or leave some parameters undefined.

Strong example: How do Baby Boomers in the USA feel about their gender identity?

Weak example: Do people feel different about gender now?

2. Be original

Look for research questions that haven’t been widely addressed by others already.

Strong example: What are the effects of video calling on women’s experiences of work?

Weak example: Are women given less respect than men at work?

3. Make it research-worthy

Don’t ask a question that can be answered with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, or with a quick Google search.

Strong example: What do people like and dislike about living in a highly multi-lingual country?

Weak example: What languages are spoken in India?

4. Focus your question

Don’t roll multiple topics or questions into one. Qualitative data may involve multiple topics, but your qualitative questions should be focused.

Strong example: What is the experience of disabled children and their families when using social services?

Weak example: How can we improve social services for children affected by poverty and disability?

4. Focus on your own discipline, not someone else’s

Avoid asking questions that are for the politicians, police or others to address.

Strong example: What does it feel like to be the victim of a hate crime?

Weak example: How can hate crimes be prevented?

5. Ask something researchable

Big questions, questions about hypothetical events or questions that would require vastly more resources than you have access to are not useful starting points for qualitative studies. Qualitative words or subjective ideas that lack definition are also not helpful.

Strong example: How do perceptions of physical beauty vary between today’s youth and their parents’ generation?

Weak example: Which country has the most beautiful people in it?

Related resources

Qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, business research methods 12 min read, mixed methods research 17 min read, market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

• Search Close search
• Find a journal
• Search calls for papers
• Journal Suggester
• Open access publishing

We’re here to help

Find guidance on Author Services

Free access

Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512

The process of developing questions

Writing good qualitative questions, notes on contributor.

• Full Article
• Figures & data
• Reprints & Permissions
• View PDF PDF

The reflective and interrogative processes required for developing effective qualitative research questions can give shape and direction to a study in ways that are often underestimated. Good research questions do not necessarily produce good research, but poorly conceived or constructed questions will likely create problems that affect all subsequent stages of a study. In qualitative studies, the ongoing process of questioning is an integral part of understanding the unfolding lives and perspectives of others. This article addresses both the development of initial research questions and how the processes of generating and refining questions are critical to the shaping of a qualitative study.

• qualitative research questions
• qualitative methods
• development

Many qualitative researchers see a question as a beginning point for their research. Once a satisfactory question is in place, a study can begin. A research question does fulfill this function, but I propose here that much more is involved in creating and using research questions in qualitative studies. The reflective and interrogative processes required for developing research questions can give shape and direction to a study in ways that are often underestimated.

Good questions do not necessarily produce good research, but poorly conceived or constructed questions will likely create problems that affect all subsequent stages of a study. Ultimately, the quality of the initial questions impacts whether or not a study is approved by a dissertation committee, published, or funded. This article addresses both the development of initial research questions and how the processes of generating and refining questions are critical to the shaping all phases of a qualitative study the inquiry process.

The idea of qualitative inquiry as a reflective process underscores the strengths of a qualitative approach. At the heart of this approach are methods for representing what Geertz ( Citation 1973 , 10) called the ‘microscopic’ details of the social and cultural aspects of individuals’ lives. He described the central task of the ethnographer in his well‐known discussion on the myriad interpretations of a human wink. He noted that it is not enough to describe a wink and label it as a behavior. Rather, ‘the thing to ask’ about human behaviors is ‘what their import is’ (Geertz Citation 1973 , 10). The researcher’s credibility rests, according to Geertz, on the specifics of a place and the people who inhabit that place at a given moment, an issue addressed by Maxwell ( Citation 2005 ), Patton ( Citation 2002 ), and others. Thus, the researcher’s worth is characterized by ‘the degree to which he is able to clarify what goes on in such places, to reduce the puzzlement – what manner of men are these?’ (Geertz Citation 1973 , 16). Qualitative inquiries involve asking the kinds of questions that focus on the why and how of human interactions.

Qualitative research questions, then, need to articulate what a researcher wants to know about the intentions and perspectives of those involved in social interactions. Strauss ( Citation 1987 /1990, 6) noted that the traditions from which qualitative inquiry sprang ‘placed social interaction and social processes at the center’ of this approach. He highlighted the purpose for qualitative inquiry (as developed by the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago) which ‘from its inception emphasized the necessity for grasping the actors’ viewpoints for understanding interaction, process, and social change’ (Strauss Citation 1987 /1990, 6). In qualitative studies, then, the ongoing process of questioning is an integral part of understanding the unfolding lives and perspectives of others. Creswell ( Citation 2007 , 43) noted that ‘Our questions change during the process of research to reflect an increased understanding of the problem,’ a point also addressed by Charmaz ( Citation 2006 ) as a central part of using grounded theory. However, changes in questions should also emerge from researchers’ capacities to examine their own roles and perspectives in the inquiry process, especially how they are positioned in relation to participants.

More recent qualitative inquiry has moved toward involving the researcher and participants in the process of inquiry (e.g., Flick Citation 2006 ; Lassiter Citation 2005 ; Maxwell Citation 2005 ). Participants are sometimes invited to collaborate on the formulation of research questions, especially in participatory action research. Stringer ( Citation 2007 , 11) argued that ‘All stakeholders – those whose lives are affected by the problem under study – should be engaged in the processes of investigation.’ Given these developments in qualitative research, I focus on the development of questions as part of a larger interactive process wherein the primary premises of qualitative inquiry are more fully realized.

Good qualitative questions are usually developed or refined in all stages of a reflexive and interactive inquiry journey. Flick ( Citation 2006 , 105) noted that ‘reflecting on and reformulating the research questions are central points of reference for assessing the appropriateness of the decisions you take at several points.’ To extend the journey metaphor, it is helpful to think of research questions as navigational tools that can help a researcher map possible directions but also to inquire about the unexpected.

Below, I address ways of conceptualizing, developing, and writing research questions for a qualitative study. I realize that, within the scope of a single article, it is not possible to tackle all aspects of question development, but I felt it would be helpful, after working with doctoral students and reviewing journal articles, books, and conference proposals over the years to address this topic. I begin with the conceptualization of qualitative questions and how they evolve during different stages of a study. Then I describe some of the characteristics of good questions. I end with suggestions for writing effective questions and situating them in a paper or a dissertation.

Some qualitative researchers, especially those who write about grounded theory, recommend waiting until one is in the field and collecting data to fully develop research questions. In many situations, though, waiting is not an option. Charmaz ( Citation 2006 , 154) pointed out the realities that confront many novice researchers: ‘The emergent character of grounded theory may conflict with class report or dissertation requirements.’ A qualitative study does not begin with a hypothesis or a presumed outcome as is the case in a quantitative study. However, as Richards ( Citation 2005 ) noted, a qualitative study cannot begin without a plan. She argued that such an approach would be ‘unacceptable for both ethical and practical reasons’ (Richards Citation 2005 , 14). Because most researchers do need at least some initial questions for dissertations and funded project proposals, I address those who need to develop questions early on as part of designing a qualitative study. However, I want to emphasize that these initial questions are only a beginning point in the inquiry process. As Creswell ( Citation 2007 , 107) noted, qualitative questions are ‘evolving.’ First iterations of questions are tentative and exploratory but give researchers a tool for articulating the primary focus of the study.

Beginning the process

Researchers often begin thinking about a study long before they draft their first research questions. For Janesick ( Citation 2000 , 382), qualitative research begins with ‘a question, or at least an intellectual curiosity if not a passion for a particular topic.’ Certainly this statement will ring true for most researchers. I often find ideas for studies bubbling up as I read and teach and now keep an ‘Idea File’ on my computer. Most of the doctoral students I work with begin thinking about a study based on a deep interest in a topic they have already begun exploring.

Good questions can grow out of initial curiosity or ideas for a qualitative study, but at the early stages most questions are rough drafts. Janesick ( Citation 2000 , 382) suggests beginning with a self‐question: ‘What do I want to know in this study?’ Even those using grounded theory have some broad questions after entering a potential research site. Charmaz ( Citation 2006 , 20) suggests that broad questions such as ‘What’s going on here?’; ‘What are the basic social processes?’; and ‘What are the basic social psychological processes?’ can serve to help a researcher find some initial focus. Maxwell ( Citation 2005 , 65) called these early questions ‘provisional,’ but noted that even these early iterations are already determining decisions about theory and methods. These initial questions can be conceptualized as generative: they may invite a series of more specific questions that help to create the focus needed to move forward with data collection.

One of the problems that novice researchers may find challenging is framing a qualitative question that not only inquires about phenomena, understanding, or perceptions, but also signals the relevance of the study to a field or discipline. Flick ( Citation 2006 , 109) described qualitative research questions as those that are ‘describing states and those describing processes.’ However, most qualitative questions are also linked implicitly to a specific field of study. Patton ( Citation 2002 , 216) offered a typology of the kinds of disciplinary questions that often shape more specific questions in a discipline. For example, anthropologists may ask questions such as ‘What is the nature of culture?’ or ‘What are the functions of culture?’ Others have offered constructs for question types that help a researcher think about the kind of study they are doing and what purpose the researcher has. For example, Marshall and Rossman ( Citation 2006 ) described questions that perform four different functions: exploratory, explanatory, descriptive, and emancipatory. I doubt that many researchers begin with these typologies in mind, but it is helpful perhaps to use these typologies to think about potential directions that a study might take and about the relevance of a study to a particular discipline.

Most qualitative researchers need specific questions for a proposal. Creating one or two broad questions can be a fertile starting point for thinking through the specifics of what the study is about and what data will need to be collected. Maxwell ( Citation 2005 , 67) observed that ‘precisely framed research questions … can point you to specific areas of theory that you can use as modules in developing an understanding of what’s going on, and suggest ways to do the study.’ For example, a researcher in the field of social welfare might want to know if child welfare workers suffer from secondary post‐traumatic stress as a result of their work with neglected or abused children. An initial question might be simply framed: Do child welfare workers suffer from secondary post‐traumatic stress? This broad question is already giving some focus to the study and is clearly relevant to the field of social welfare. However, the phrasing of this question is problematic as it could be answered with a yes or no and does not suggest a qualitative approach. Good qualitative questions should invite a process of exploration and discovery, as Creswell ( Citation 2007 ) suggests. Initial provisional questions can become more focused; however, with a question like the one above, movement forward later in the inquiry process is constrained. Maxwell ( Citation 2005 , 67) also cautioned that starting with questions that are too focused can lead to ‘tunnel vision’ and can inhibit a researcher’s understanding and analysis. Creating discovery‐oriented questions can help a researcher use the process of developing and refining questions as a basis for a more rigorous and reflexive inquiry.

With a qualitative study, a researcher is inquiring about such topics as how people are experiencing an event, a series of events, and/or a condition. The questions generally seek to uncover the perspectives of an individual, a group, or different groups. Most qualitative studies need to be focused on the particularities of the local and on the ‘thick description’ of human interactions in that context (Geertz Citation 1973 , 6).With those characteristics in mind, a question needs to move the researcher toward discovering what is happening in a particular situation with a particular person or group. A good example of this kind of question is one that Janesick ( Citation 2000 , 383) created as her overarching question for a study on deaf adults: ‘How do deaf adults manage to succeed academically and in the workplace given the stigma of deafness in our society?’ This question, as she noted, guided her methods and suggested a critical theoretical framework for her study – the cultural stigma of deafness in the USA. However, she also focuses on two specific contexts, academia and workplaces, in which this stigma affects human interactions.

Sometimes, it is necessary to bring others into the development of first iterations of questions. For a doctoral student, decisions about initial questions are often made with an advisor and/or a dissertation committee. For those engaging in evaluation studies, and also perhaps in ethnographic studies, it may be important to collaborate with a funding agency or with the group under study to see what questions they feel are important to answer. The direction and the scope of the questions may be critical to designing an effective study and to collecting data that the stakeholders find acceptable and meaningful.

Creating an overarching question to guide the inquiry process

Developing an overarching question, as Janesick ( Citation 2000 ) did, has advantages for the researcher. A broadly framed question can serve as a basis for initial and emerging sub‐questions. A single overarching question allows a researcher to capture the basic goals of the study in one major question. A clearly stated overarching question can give direction for the study design and collection of data and offer potential for developing new, more specific questions during data collection and analysis.

This ethnographic study focuses on a group of academically successful working class girls and their uses of literacy in high school English class. Specifically, I examined these girls’ classroom literacy in the context of gender and class identities, looking at how their gendered and class identities influenced their uses of literacy and how these girls used texts from English class to construct their gender and class.

This statement identified her overarching focus of inquiry and could be converted to a question format, but for the article, stating her purpose for the inquiry works just as well.

This article examines the role that race/ethnicity and gender play in the politics of 50 American Indian and Hispanic women public officials and grassroots activists in New Mexico. Incorporation of both formal/electoral and informal/grassroots leaders into one study provides valuable opportunities for comparison and contrast among women in politics working in a variety of circumstances toward the generally similar goals of empowering others to participate in public life and representing marginalized groups’ interests. This study of Native women and Latinas in both governmental institutions and grassroots organizations focuses on the influence of race/ethnicity and gender identity on their political ideologies and motives for activism. (Prindeville Citation 2003 , 591)

Although this approach offers some of the same information as a series of questions might, some people prefer questions because they can offer more clearly defined goals for the study and better guide data collection. One potential problem with the statement above is that the second sentence offers the implicit idea that all women in politics are working ‘toward the generally similar goals of empowering others to participate in public life and representing marginalized groups’ interests’ (Prindeville Citation 2003 , 591). If cast as a question, such a statement might more clearly be recognized interpreted as a ‘leading’ question, one where the author is presupposing a condition rather than being open to what she might discover in conducting interviews with her participants. In this instance, as is common in critical studies, the researcher is working from a set of assumptions that are linked to a critical theoretical position on gender and power. I will address these kinds of presuppositions later in the article when describing effective questions.

Developing sub‐questions and new questions during a study

An initial generative question can set the stage for developing related sub‐questions. Sub‐questions can take many forms, depending on the focus of the overarching question. Creswell ( Citation 2007 , 109–110), drawing on Stake ( Citation 1995 ), described ‘issue’ and ‘procedural’ sub‐questions, although some questions may cut across these categories. Both types of sub‐questions emerge from an overarching question and ask about the specifics of a topic/issue or a phenomenon. Rubenstein‐Avila ( Citation 2007 ) used her initial question on a single case study of a young woman from the Dominican Republic who moved to the USA to set up two related sub‐questions. Her first question – ‘What counts as literacy for a young Dominican immigrant woman as she makes the transition into high school in the USA?’ – led to two sub‐questions: ‘In what ways do her emerging transnational experiences affect her expanding repertoire of literacy practices?’ and ‘What role does school play in the development of the literacy practices that count across institutions of higher education in an era of globalization?’ (Rubenstein‐Avila Citation 2007 , 572). These sub‐questions narrow the broader focus of the overarching question. While allowing for discovery, they also give direction to the particular kinds of data she would need to collect: data on this participant’s transnational experiences from her perspective and data on school policies that affect literacy practices in a global society.

As I observed Tina’s struggles, my research questions changed. Initially I was interested in preservice teachers’ perspectives on reading and teaching literature. However, as I continued to work with Tina during her first two years in the classroom, I focused on a second question: How is Tina, as an African American teacher who ended up teaching in a suburban school, able to develop her teaching identity in her first 2 years of teaching? Tina’s experiences also prompted larger questions: How do national and state policies that shape standards and assessments influence teacher identity formation, especially for teachers who want to use more diverse texts and approaches? Are teacher education programs unintentionally maintaining a White, Euro‐American hegemony with discourse that makes teachers of color and their perspectives on curriculum invisible?

These subsequent questions ended up reshaping my data collection and my analyses.

What does contextual knowledge of working life represent under conditions in which the social setting at the place of work is regarded as a subculture in which norms, traditions and rituals are created? What processes are involved in actors’ creating meanings that are important for their experiencing professional fulfillment and how is this related to their life experiences in general? (Linden and Cermak Citation 2007 , 48)

The focus of these questions helped the researchers develop a variety of protocols, from personal and group diaries to interviews, to collect the kinds of data that would reveal the actors’ perspectives on their personal and professional lives. Their questions grew out of the hermeneutic framework that they used to highlight critical moments in the actors’ lives. They offer the potential for exploration of a rich nexus of social and cultural issues that deeply affect these participants.

Theory and questions: a dialogic process

Theory is inextricably linked to research questions, whether the theory is shaping them initially or suggesting new questions as the study unfolds. An overarching question for many qualitative studies will point toward one or more of the theoretical constructs that frame the study. As Maxwell ( Citation 2005 , 68) explained, research questions need to account for one’s ‘tentative theories about … phenomena.’ Those tentative theories and the questions that result from them may very well change to accommodate data collection or preliminary findings. Often, when doctoral students write a proposal, they are drawn to grand theories as a beginning point. For example, a researcher may be drawn to social justice issues and therefore choose a critical theory framework, writ large, in the initial stages. As the design develops, the researcher may decide to focus on questions about a particular aspect of a social context, such as social interactions. At this point, the theory might be narrowed to discourse analysis, and research questions about discourse and the positioning of individuals in a discourse would follow.

Theoretical framing evolves and changes during most studies and may also inspire additional questions as a researcher collects data. Karpiak ( Citation 2006 , 86), for example, had begun her study of middle‐aged social workers with three questions: ‘What happens to these professionals in their work, their personal relationships, and their sense of self during the mid‐life transition? How do they manage the changes and transitions during this period? Finally, for those for whom this period has ushered in major changes, what events triggered them?’ After she was immersed in collecting her data, she found chaos theory revealed other dimensions of the participants’ life changes that she had not originally considered: ‘Through the lens of this theory, I could see the possibilities for human evolution that may follow from disorder, turbulence, chaos, and crisis’ (Karpiak Citation 2006 , 105). Karpiak’s turn to Chaos Theory helped generate new questions on how middle‐aged people handle life situations beyond their control.

Some researchers, such as Yin ( Citation 1994 ), propose that a theoretical framework should inform the research questions for case study research as the theory will help to define the selection and parameters of cases. As researchers design a study and protocols, theory often shapes the methods in explicit ways. For many researchers, selecting a theoretical framework not only shapes the questions but also connects the research to a particular field. In a reflective piece on some earlier research, Merriam ( Citation 2006 ) explained how she and her colleagues used the transformation learning theory of Mezirow ( Citation 1990 ) in developing a study of HIV‐positive young adults. She described the role of theory in all aspects of the study: ‘Our interest in the framework of transformational learning drove all aspects of our study from identifying the focus of our investigation, to sample selection, to interpretation of our data’ (Merriam Citation 2006 , 26). The research question Merriam et al. developed emerged from theory and guided them to select a particular group of participants: ‘Having selected a sample of HIV‐positive young adults, we wanted to explore how they made sense of this catastrophic news; that is, how does a young adult make meaning of this threat to his or her existence?’ (Merriam Citation 2006 , 27). This question reflected Mezirow’s ideas about a process of learning that leads, through a meaning‐making process, to transformations in thought and action in the lives of individuals. Merriam et al. also pointed out the relevance of Mezirow’s theory to the field of adult learning, so they were making connections between this study and this particular field.

How do the ways in which adolescent Latinas/Latinos conceptualize classroom participation processes shape active oral participation?

How do girls and boys understand the relationship of gender to participation?

What, if any, are the mitigating factors influencing classroom participation? (Patchen Citation 2006 , 2054)

Her first and third questions point to discourse theory, and her second question more specifically to theories on the role of gender in discussions. Her questions also connected her theoretical frameworks to her methods and guided her analyses. Her explicit connections to these theoretical constructs helped focus her inquiry but at the same time anticipated discoveries about these students’ conceptions.

What is the new literacy practice of online journaling?

How do two focal students use online journaling to form and represent their identities?

For these two students, what are the engaging and appealing aspects of online journaling that might inform instructional practice in their language arts classrooms?

The first question seeks to define the phenomenon as a literacy practice and to establish a link with theories on writing. The second question points to identity theory as a framework for examining the appeal of online journaling. The third question seeks to identify what aspects of this literacy practice are engaging for these students and could lead to theories on motivation or engagement. However, the third question is problematic. It is presuming implications for the study – that journaling is engaging and that this practice has the potential to inform practice – and is out of place as a research question. The main point to remember is that qualitative questions should embrace theory, either explicitly or implicitly as a way of giving direction and framing particular ideas. Theory also serves as a conceptual tool that can move an inquiry forward toward deeper levels of understanding.

Ideally, the inquiry process should not only include possibilities for discoveries that may lead to new theory and questions, as was the case for Merriam et al., and for developing new theories and questions that may emerge from analyses of data but also possibilities for ongoing reflexivity about one’s own theories or world view. Creswell ( Citation 2007 , 42) noted that a qualitative study begins with ‘the broad assumptions central to qualitative inquiry, a worldview consistent with it, and in many cases, a theoretical lens that shapes the study.’ One’s worldview often determines an initial choice of theory. As Flick ( Citation 2006 , 106) observed, research questions usually originate with ‘the researchers’ personal biographies and their social contexts.’ I find many students are in love with a particular theory even before shaping their questions, and it is likely that their own life experiences have played a role in their choice. However, the process of qualitative inquiry should invite the possibility for questioning personal theories and for expanding or modifying the original conceptual framework and research questions.

Reflexivity and ethical considerations in developing questions

Part of the process of developing questions in qualitative research is being reflective about how the questions will affect participants’ lives and how the questions will position the researcher in relation to participants. This ethical aspect of question development is often ignored, but is a central issue when a researcher proposes to study the lives of others, especially marginalized populations. As Flick ( Citation 2006 ) noted, qualitative studies can reveal how people experience and think about events and social relations, so a qualitative question needs to be developed to take advantage of the unique capabilities of qualitative research. At the same time, because the researcher is representing the lives of individuals, the kinds of questions a researcher is asking become paramount when considering the short‐ and long‐term effects on others.

Modern thought and experience have taught us to be sensitive to what is involved in representation, in studying the Other, in racial thinking, in unthinking and uncritical acceptance of authority and authoritative ideas, in the socio‐political role of intellectuals, in the great value of a skeptical critical consciousness. Perhaps if we remember that the study of human experience usually has an ethical, to say nothing of a political, consequence in either the best or the worst sense, we will not be indifferent to what we do as scholars. (Said Citation 1979 , 327)

In earlier debates on representation by ethnographers (see Roth et al. Citation 1989 ), researchers took on the problem of representation as an ethical issue. More recently, ethnographers have moved toward studies that are reciprocal (Lawless Citation 2000 ) or collaborative (Lassiter Citation 2005 ) where a researcher works with participants as co‐researchers to co‐create representations. Such collaborative efforts often change the nature of research questions. Lassiter, for example, following the advice of Spradley and McCurdy ( Citation 1972 ), turned to those he was interested in working with in his research – the Kiowa tribe – to discover what was important in their lives from their perspectives.

Concern with ethics has been central in narrative and life history studies. In a review of scholarship on narrative ethics, Adams ( Citation 2008 , 179) found that ‘working with ethics involves realizing that we do not know how others will respond to and/or interpret our work.’ Importantly, he also asked, ‘What questions can we use to probe authors and stories to uncover their ‘ethical dimensions’?’ Taken to an extreme, Adams ( Citation 2008 , 184) admitted that concerns about ethics can paralyze a researcher: ‘Will I silence myself worrying about harming them ?’ He concluded, ‘We can never definitively know how others interpret our work nor can we ever definitively know who we harm and help with our life stories.’ Consideration of ethical issues begins in the process of reflection and is carried forward into formulating questions, designing a study, and writing it up for publication. The best practice is to engage in ‘meaningful conversations about life writing’ (Adams Citation 2008 , 188). These conversations should certainly begin during the formulation of research questions, but they can continue to take place during and after the completion of the inquiry process.

It is important to remember developing good research questions requires understanding that inquiries into other people’s lives are always an exercise in ethics. Institutional review boards at universities routinely ask researchers who are proposing a study to state the level of risk to the participants. Assessing risk when formulating questions is often particularly difficult for new researchers. A former doctoral student who was chairing her department in a high school wanted to study how well the teachers in her department were implementing a new initiative she had developed. Not only did her committee not approve the study but the institutional review board also denied the student approval on the grounds that the proposed study could jeopardize these teachers’ jobs and professional lives due to issues of authority and coercion.

In another instance, one doctoral student wanted to study her colleagues to see how they felt about implementing new teaching strategies that her school was implementing. In my discussion with this student, it was clear that she had not thought about the possible consequences to her colleagues and how her future professional relationship with them might be damaged by asking this question. She decided to change the focus of her study.

Well‐crafted qualitative research questions can address sensitive topics and pursue issues that are of importance to a field of study. Wood ( Citation 2006 ) described the ethical challenges she faced in conducting field research in El Salvador during the civil war. She was examining the perspectives of Salvadorans from a range of socioeconomic situations on the conflict. She made the point that in such sensitive and dangerous contexts, where people’s lives may be threatened by participation in a study, that the context should determine the research and ‘some settings where research cannot be ethically conducted and should not be attempted or should be curtailed’ (Wood Citation 2006 , 374). Wood also practiced the kind of interactive, reflective thinking that goes into developing and carrying out a qualitative study.

Our reflections on Melissa’s statement awakened us to deeper thinking about how we storied the children as well as how the children storied us. How were we imagining the children’s positioning in this inquiry? How were they positioning us? How might Melissa’s story of children as teachers be lived out in a relational narrative inquiry? How did we imagine children were to be co‐researchers in a relational narrative inquiry?

Developing qualitative research questions should include careful thought about how the direction of the inquiry will position the researcher in relation to participants and what the implications are for the participants’ lives.

When researchers disregard how ethnic participants are reshaping research design, they fail to see the agency exerted by the Other. And such non‐recognitions simply reduce participants to data sources and to objects that are ready to be sorted out and written up through the researchers’ ethnographic imaginations.

In asking his research questions and designing his interview protocols, Subedi did not anticipate the level of discomfort his participants would feel when participating in taped interviews. He advised other researchers who are researching ‘marginalized people … to fully engage with cultural differences and be explicit about how the learning encounters have redrawn the maps of research methodologies’ (Subedi Citation 2007 , 65). This process begins with the research questions and thinking through the ethical implications of asking particular questions.

Adams ( Citation 2008 ) concluded that engaging in conversations about and reflecting on potential ethical issues is the best approach. Although there are no assurances that the researcher will not encounter other ethical issues along the way in a study, the goal is to develop reflexive and dialogical tools through thoughtful development of research questions.

So, what is required in actually writing research questions for a qualitative study? Qualitative questions usually inform the direction of the study in both theoretical and methodological terms. One important characteristic in writing initial questions is focus . A question can be thought of as a tool that is much like a steady‐cam lens used to document an event or a journey. In the initial stages of study design, the researcher uses the steady‐cam to frame an ever‐changing broad landscape and then narrows the focus to frame and follow a specific set of events or actions in the broader terrain. However, that terrain is not just any place; it is a specific place with a dense, rich history. Geertz ( Citation 1973 , 22) emphasized this point in the work of ethnography: ‘Anthropologists don’t study villages …; they study in villages.’ Questions have to reflect this particularity. A qualitative researcher is not asking about any context but rather asking about ‘the delicacy of its distinctions’ (Geertz Citation 1973 , 25). However, new researchers often have difficulty conceptualizing their first questions in these terms.

Many first attempts at question development generate questions that are overly broad and that lack reference to a specific context. A doctoral student who was planning to conduct a pilot study – a single case study of a veteran high school teacher – drafted a first question that asked: ‘How do teachers perceive professional development on strategies for helping at‐risk students?’ Using the metaphor of a steady‐cam, it was clear that one problem with the first‐draft question was that the context for this question was not in focus. Who were these teachers? How did their perceptions reflect the context of their school and their school district? The researcher had a particular context in mind, but did not clarify this context in the question. Moreover, she was going to study one teacher in a particular school. Her question also did not describe the duration of professional development. Was it taking place in one day or over a longer period of time? Her revision added some important context and allowed her to focus her question: ‘How does a high school English teacher perceive a one‐week professional development workshop that focused on instructional strategies for at‐risk students?’

After talking with this student, I asked why she was interested in a teacher’s perceptions on professional development. In our subsequent discussions, she realized she was really interested in the factors that shaped their perceptions and influenced their propensity for adopting some of the strategies they had learned about. Her question then became ‘What factors influence high school English teachers’ perceptions of a one‐week professional development workshop on instructional strategies for at‐risk students?’ A second question asked, ‘How did these factors influence the degree to which they used these strategies in their work with at‐risk students?’ Although she continued to refine her questions, this dialogic and iterative process helped her to begin designing a pilot study that would involve two interviews with the teacher, one during the professional development workshop and a second after the workshop, and observations in her classroom after the workshop.

The process of focusing questions is an iterative, reflective process that leads, not just to data, but to specific data that can add knowledge to a larger field of study. Flick ( Citation 2006 , 106) summed this up quite well: ‘The result of formulating questions is it helps you to circumscribe a specific area of a more or less complex field which you regard as essential.’ When beginning to write questions, a researcher might use the old, but useful question, ‘So what?’ What difference will this inquiry make in the field of study in which a researcher is working? The importance of the questions to the field should help to shape the writing of research questions.

In sum, qualitative questions should reflect the particularities of one’s study. Maxwell ( Citation 2005 , 67) phrased it bluntly: ‘The function of your research questions is to explain specifically what your study is about.’ If a researcher is going to study a group of students in an urban high school in the mid‐west, the question should specify the participants as situated in the rich contexts in which they are living their lives.

Making questions work for the researcher

As noted above, theory is an important aspect of qualitative research questions. When writing questions, it is important to frame the words so that the phrasing implicitly or explicitly makes a link with the theory, as described above. Maxwell ( Citation 2005 , 67) described research questions as guides that can help ‘point you toward specific areas of theory’ and that may be helpful in designing the study. For example, if a researcher is interested in urban middle school students and their perceptions on experiences that lead them to dropping out of school, questions might be phrased to take into account some aspect of critical theory. The researcher might also be interested in the ways that discourses in the school and community contribute to these students’ at‐risk status, so the researcher might word the question so that it would point specifically to critical discourse theory.

Another important issue when writing questions is to be sure that they are answerable . Can they be answered by any kind of study? A former student, with a background in library science, was doing a small study for a class project and came up with an initial question that asked: ‘How do college students feel about their campus library?’ Of course, he had no intention of interviewing all college students in the world. In our conversation about his proposal, he said he was especially interested in undergraduate students’ views on specific services provided by the library. He was able to narrow his question to ask about undergraduates on one campus and to focus his questions so that he addressed some of the specific services offered by the library. His rewriting provided the limitations necessary for designing and carrying out a small study in a semester.

There are many practical considerations to think about when writing questions. Some questions are simply not answerable given the researcher’s time frame and resources. When writing questions, a novice researcher may not take into account the costs of travel, copying, transcription, and all the time and materials required. Richards ( Citation 2005 , 15) lists three questions to ask in developing research questions: ‘What are you asking? How are you asking it? What data will you need to provide a good answer?’ Her third question is particularly important. If a question is focused and clearly establishes what data is needed to answer the question, the research process will likely be smooth and achievable within a reasonable time frame.

As noted above, when writing a qualitative research question, it is usually important not to phrase it so that it ‘leads’ or contains a presupposition about participants or events. In qualitative research, in particular, the researcher is trying to discover meaning throughout the inquiry process. However, there are theoretical positions as well as qualitative approaches that work from a set of assumptions or a worldview such that research questions contain those implicit or explicit views. Critical theorists often begin by assuming unequal power relationships exist, and those assumptions may shape questions. In participatory action research, initial questions may also seem to lead as they tend to focus on a local set of circumstances. Yet these kinds of research can also work toward a process that opens an inquiry rather than closing it prematurely. If a researcher takes seriously the idea that questions are evolving and provide tools for opening dialogue, as suggested by Van Manen ( Citation 1990 ), early assumptions may be questioned as the research evolves. Stringer ( Citation 2007 , 11) argued that with participatory action research, the stakeholders have continuing opportunities to question what they know and assume: ‘As they rigorously explore and reflect on their situation together, they can repudiate social myths, misconceptions, and misrepresentations and formulate more constructive analyses of their situation.’

In many cases, though, leading questions emerge when new researchers have not thought through their study design and how the wording of questions might lead to unintended problems. For example, one of my doctoral students posed the following question: ‘What events and interactions are occurring in middle school social studies classrooms that show self‐regulated learning?’ Besides being overly broad and providing little context, the question presupposes the occurrence of self‐regulated learning in middle school classrooms. After the student revised the question and added some context, she came up with the following version: ‘What kinds of learning strategies are evident in three urban middle school classrooms after the teachers engaged in professional development on self‐regulated learning?’ The revised question brings the focus to learning strategies without presupposing an outcome for professional development.

It can be difficult to avoid leading questions based on assumptions or a particular world view. Often researchers come to a study expecting to see certain events occur and may write questions around those expectations. Often such questions tend to assign attributes to a situation or a group of people in advance and thereby violate the essence of qualitative inquiry in ways that may not be desirable. For example, questions that assume that all social workers suffer from secondary post‐traumatic stress or that all urban school children have low levels of literacy are based on faulty premises. Writing leading questions that arrive at certain conclusions before collecting data can bias a study in a way that damages its credibility.

Finally, wording matters in writing questions. Substituting one word for another or adding one word can clarify or obscure the meaning of a question. In writing a question for a class project, one student asked: ‘How does the act of participating in an online class affect self‐concept when the learner is new to online learning?’ In his revision, he added one word and deleted three to come up with the following question: ‘How does participating in an online college class affect self‐concept when the learner is new to online learning?’ Adding ‘college’ focused the question on a particular age group. Deleting ‘the act of’ focused the question on examining a range of interactions that informed the learner’s self‐concept.

Finally, it is important not to ‘pack’ questions with multiple sub‐questions. A former doctoral student started with the following research question for his qualitative study on administrators of wellness clinics: ‘How do wellness clinic administrators in a large urban clinic describe their professional collaborations with other clinic administrators and staff members, their roles as collaborators, and their collaborative partners?’ This question needs to be unpacked. There are several questions embedded in this one question that merit separate questions. This student wanted to examine parity in these different collaborative interactions. So, his revised questions asked, ‘How do wellness clinic administrators in a large urban clinic perceive their collaborations with other administrators?’ and ‘How do wellness clinic administrators perceive their collaborations with staff members?’ He also wanted to understand how the administrators perceived their roles in each of these collaborative contexts and if those differed. So, he rewrote the question, ‘Do these administrators’ perceived roles in collaborations with other administrators and with staff members differ, and if so how?’ After thinking through what he wanted to know in each situation, he was able to unpack his initial question and parse its multiple aims in order to create a clearer set of research questions.

Situating questions in a paper or dissertation

After deciding on initial questions for a proposal or a paper, it is helpful to think about where the questions will be placed in the manuscript and what will precede them. In a well‐written qualitative paper, the research questions need to be stated early in the paper, but they also need to have enough prefatory material so that a reader can see how the questions are growing out of interests of the researcher, theoretical premises, and significant issues in the discipline. Thoughtful placement of the questions will show a reader how the questions are linked to the larger study.

Consequently, the purpose of this study is to explore the reading comprehension strategies of skilled sixth‐grade readers prompted by Internet search engines and informational websites, and further, to begin to describe how readers employed these strategies in each context. The tasks we designed focused on three aspects of comprehension deemed important from a new literacies perspective (e.g., locating, evaluating, and synthesizing) (Leu et al. 2004) in two online reading contexts commonly used for Internet research tasks in school classrooms (Lenhart, Simon, et al. 2001). To explore these issues, we conducted a qualitative study of reading strategies used across these contexts guided by two related questions:

What characterizes the reading process as skilled readers search for and locate information on the internet?

What informs the choices that skilled readers make while reading for information on the Internet?

In these questions, I might have requested the addition of ‘sixth‐grade’ before ‘skilled readers.’ However, the authors had stated their goals for the study earlier, and they had clearly established the context and the grade and skill level of the participants, so the reader could use the questions as a guide through the rest of the study. The preface above set up the questions, identified a theoretical framework (New Literacy theory), described the context, and described the general approach used for the study.

Because qualitative papers tend to be lengthy, the writer may want to place the research questions in both the introductory material and in the methods section. This placement is especially helpful in a dissertation. For a dissertation study in this instance, it is sometimes useful to restate the questions yet again in the concluding chapter to show how the analysis and conclusions have addressed the questions.

Conceptualizing, developing, writing, and re‐writing research questions are all part of a dynamic, reflective qualitative inquiry process. Using qualitative research questions reflexively can help researchers to clarify purpose, make connections with a field of study, and reflect on and interrogate the impact of the research trajectory on participants.

Writing is a tool that enables people in every discipline to wrestle with facts and ideas …. It compels us by the repeated effort of language to go after those thoughts and to organize them and present them clearly. It forces us to keep asking, ‘Am I saying what I want to say?’ Very often, the answer is ‘No.’

Zinsser’s point works well with the idea that writing and re‐writing research questions encourages researchers to ask important questions about purpose and clarity and to learn from this process. Wrestling with our questions, through reflecting and writing, ultimately helps us to become better researchers.

In conclusion, good qualitative questions can be significant tools that shape a study design and analysis. Although initial questions often emerge from a researcher’s passions and interests in particular topics, ultimately, the goal is to refine and possibly expand the inquiry through reflexive, iterative, and dialogic processes that are central to the theoretical and ethical positions taken up by the researcher. During the inquiry process, a researcher needs to see questions as tools for discovery as well as tools for clarity and focus. In the end, good qualitative questions are dynamic and multi‐directional, drawing the reader into the research with a focus on a topic of significance and at the same time functioning as lenses that are directed outward by the researcher to capture the nuances of the lives, experiences, and perspectives of others.

Jane Agee, PhD, teaches qualitative research courses and is interested in theoretical and methodological issues in qualitative research and in literacy. She has published in Research in the Teaching of English , English Education , Journal of Literacy Research , and the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education among others.

Related Research Data

• Adams , T.E. 2008 . A review of narrative ethics . Qualitative Inquiry , 14 ( 2 ) : 175 – 94 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Agee , J. 2004 . ‘Winks upon winks’: Multiple lenses on settings in qualitative educational research . Qualitative Studies in Education , 15 ( 5 ) : 569 – 85 .   Google Scholar
• Charmaz , K. 2006 . Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Clifford , J. 1988 . The predicament of culture: Twentieth‐century ethnography, literature, and art , Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .   Google Scholar
• Clifford , J. and Marcus , G. 1986 . Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography , Berkeley, CA : University of California Press .   Google Scholar
• Coiro , J. and Dobler , E. 2007 . Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet . Reading Research Quarterly , 4 ( 2 ) : 214 – 57 .   Google Scholar
• Creswell , J. 2007 . Qualitative inquiry and research design , 2nd ed. , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Flick , U. 2006 . An introduction to qualitative research , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Geertz , C. 1973 . The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays , New York : Basic Books .   Google Scholar
• Guzzetti , B. and Gamboa , M. 2005 . Online journaling: The informal writings of two adolescent girls . Research in the Teaching of English , 40 ( 2 ) : 168 – 206 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hartman , P. 2006 . ‘Loud on the inside’: Working‐class girls, gender, and literacy . Research in the Teaching of English , 41 ( 1 ) : 82 – 117 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Huber , J. and Clandenin , J. 2002 . Ethical dilemmas in relational narrative inquiry with children . Qualitative Inquiry , 8 ( 6 ) : 785 – 803 .   Google Scholar
• Janesick , V. 2000 . “ The choreography of qualitative design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization ” . In Handbook of qualitative research , Edited by: Denzin , N.K. and Lincoln , Y.S. 379 – 99 . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Karpiak , I. 2006 . “ Chaos and complexity: A framework for understanding social workers at midlife ” . In Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research , Edited by: Anfara , V. and Mertz , N. 85 – 108 . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Lassiter , L. 2005 . The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography , Chicago : University of Chicago Press .   Google Scholar
• Lawless , E. 2000 . ‘Reciprocal’ ethnography: No one said it was easy . Journal of Folklore Research , 3 ( 2/3 ) : 197 – 205 .   Google Scholar
• Linden , J. and Cermak , I. 2007 . Studying dialogical selves dialogically: Multiple‐horizons analysis of critical moments of the working life of theatre actors in two cultures . Qualitative Inquiry , 7 ( 1 ) : 45 – 62 .   Google Scholar
• Marcus , G. and Fischer , M. 1986 . Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences , Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press .   Google Scholar
• Marshall , C. and Rossman , G. 2006 . Designing qualitative research , 2nd ed. , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Maxwell , J. 2005 . Qualitative research: An interactive design , 2nd ed. , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Merriam , S.B. 2006 . “ Transformational learning and HIV‐positive young adults ” . In Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research , Edited by: Anfara , V. and Mertz , N. 23 – 38 . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Mezirow , J. 1990 . “ How critical reflection triggers transformative learning ” . In Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning , Edited by: Mezirow & Associates , Jack . 1 – 20 . San Francisco : Jossey‐Bass .   Google Scholar
• Patchen , T. 2006 . Engendering participation, deliberating dependence: Inner city adolescents’ perspectives of classroom practice . Teachers College Record , 108 ( 10 ) : 2053 – 79 .   Google Scholar
• Patton , M.Q. 2002 . Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 3rd ed , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Prindeville , D.‐M. 2003 . Identity and the politics of American Indian and Hispanic women leaders . Gender & Society , 17 ( 4 ) : 591 – 608 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Richards , L. 2005 . Handling qualitative data: A practical guide , London : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Rosaldo , R. 1989 . Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis , Boston, MA : Beacon Press .   Google Scholar
• Roth , P. , Buchowski , M. , Clifford , J. , Herzfeld , M. , Sangren , S. , Sapire , D. , Strathern , M. and Tyler , S. 1989 . Ethnography without tears [with comments and reply] . Current Anthropology , 30 ( 5 ) : 555 – 69 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Rubenstein‐Avila , E. 2007 . From the Dominican Republic to Drew High: What counts as literacy for Yanira Lara? . Reading Research Quarterly , 42 ( 4 ) : 568 – 89 .   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Said , E. 1979 . Orientalism , New York : Vintage Books .   Google Scholar
• Spradley , J. and McCurdy , D. 1972 . The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society , Chicago, IL : Science Research Associates .   Google Scholar
• Stake , R. 1995 . The art of case study research , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Strauss , A. 1987/1990 . Qualitative analysis for social scientists , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .   Google Scholar
• Stringer , E. 2007 . Action research , 3rd ed. , Los Angeles : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Subedi , B. 2007 . Recognizing respondents’ ways of being and knowing: Lessons un/learned in researching Asian immigrant and Asian‐American teachers . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 20 ( 1 ) : 51 – 71 .   Google Scholar
• Van Manen , M. 1990 . Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy , New York : The State University of New York Press .   Google Scholar
• Wood , E. 2006 . The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones . Qualitative Sociology , 29 : 373 – 86 .   Google Scholar
• Yin , R. 1994 . Case study research: Design and methods , Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .   Google Scholar
• Zinsser , W. 1989 . Writing to learn , New York : Harper & Row .   Google Scholar

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form . For more information, please visit our Permissions help page .

• Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25 Examples

We review the basics of qualitative research questions, including their key components, how to craft them effectively, & 25 example questions.

Einstein was many things—a physicist, a philosopher, and, undoubtedly, a mastermind. He also had an incredible way with words. His quote, "Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted," is particularly poignant when it comes to research. 

Some inquiries call for a quantitative approach, for counting and measuring data in order to arrive at general conclusions. Other investigations, like qualitative research, rely on deep exploration and understanding of individual cases in order to develop a greater understanding of the whole. That’s what we’re going to focus on today.

Qualitative research questions focus on the "how" and "why" of things, rather than the "what". They ask about people's experiences and perceptions , and can be used to explore a wide range of topics.

The following article will discuss the basics of qualitative research questions, including their key components, and how to craft them effectively. You'll also find 25 examples of effective qualitative research questions you can use as inspiration for your own studies.

Let’s get started!

What are qualitative research questions, and when are they used?

When researchers set out to conduct a study on a certain topic, their research is chiefly directed by an overarching question . This question provides focus for the study and helps determine what kind of data will be collected.

By starting with a question, we gain parameters and objectives for our line of research. What are we studying? For what purpose? How will we know when we’ve achieved our goals?

Of course, some of these questions can be described as quantitative in nature. When a research question is quantitative, it usually seeks to measure or calculate something in a systematic way.

For example:

• How many people in our town use the library?
• What is the average income of families in our city?
• How much does the average person weigh?

Other research questions, however—and the ones we will be focusing on in this article—are qualitative in nature. Qualitative research questions are open-ended and seek to explore a given topic in-depth.

According to the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , “Qualitative research aims to address questions concerned with developing an understanding of the meaning and experience dimensions of humans’ lives and social worlds.”

This type of research can be used to gain a better understanding of people’s thoughts, feelings and experiences by “addressing questions beyond ‘what works’, towards ‘what works for whom when, how and why, and focusing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation,” states one paper in Neurological Research and Practice .

Qualitative questions often produce rich data that can help researchers develop hypotheses for further quantitative study.

• What are people’s thoughts on the new library?
• How does it feel to be a first-generation student at our school?
• How do people feel about the changes taking place in our town?

As stated by a paper in Human Reproduction , “...‘qualitative’ methods are used to answer questions about experience, meaning, and perspective, most often from the standpoint of the participant. These data are usually not amenable to counting or measuring.”

Both quantitative and qualitative questions have their uses; in fact, they often complement each other. A well-designed research study will include a mix of both types of questions in order to gain a fuller understanding of the topic at hand.

If you would like to recruit unlimited participants for qualitative research for free and only pay for the interview you conduct, try using Respondent  today. 

Crafting qualitative research questions for powerful insights

Now that we have a basic understanding of what qualitative research questions are and when they are used, let’s take a look at how you can begin crafting your own.

According to a study in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, there is a certain process researchers should follow when crafting their questions, which we’ll explore in more depth.

1. Beginning the process 

Start with a point of interest or curiosity, and pose a draft question or ‘self-question’. What do you want to know about the topic at hand? What is your specific curiosity? You may find it helpful to begin by writing several questions.

For example, if you’re interested in understanding how your customer base feels about a recent change to your product, you might ask: 

• What made you decide to try the new product?
• How do you feel about the change?
• What do you think of the new design/functionality?
• What benefits do you see in the change?

2. Create one overarching, guiding question 

At this point, narrow down the draft questions into one specific question. “Sometimes, these broader research questions are not stated as questions, but rather as goals for the study.”

As an example of this, you might narrow down these three questions: 

into the following question: 

• What are our customers’ thoughts on the recent change to our product?

3. Theoretical framing 

As you read the relevant literature and apply theory to your research, the question should be altered to achieve better outcomes. Experts agree that pursuing a qualitative line of inquiry should open up the possibility for questioning your original theories and altering the conceptual framework with which the research began.

If we continue with the current example, it’s possible you may uncover new data that informs your research and changes your question. For instance, you may discover that customers’ feelings about the change are not just a reaction to the change itself, but also to how it was implemented. In this case, your question would need to reflect this new information: 

• How did customers react to the process of the change, as well as the change itself?

4. Ethical considerations 

A study in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education stresses that ethics are “a central issue when a researcher proposes to study the lives of others, especially marginalized populations.” Consider how your question or inquiry will affect the people it relates to—their lives and their safety. Shape your question to avoid physical, emotional, or mental upset for the focus group.

In analyzing your question from this perspective, if you feel that it may cause harm, you should consider changing the question or ending your research project. Perhaps you’ve discovered that your question encourages harmful or invasive questioning, in which case you should reformulate it.

5. Writing the question 

The actual process of writing the question comes only after considering the above points. The purpose of crafting your research questions is to delve into what your study is specifically about” Remember that qualitative research questions are not trying to find the cause of an effect, but rather to explore the effect itself.

Your questions should be clear, concise, and understandable to those outside of your field. In addition, they should generate rich data. The questions you choose will also depend on the type of research you are conducting: 

• If you’re doing a phenomenological study, your questions might be open-ended, in order to allow participants to share their experiences in their own words.
• If you’re doing a grounded-theory study, your questions might be focused on generating a list of categories or themes.
• If you’re doing ethnography, your questions might be about understanding the culture you’re studying.

Whenyou have well-written questions, it is much easier to develop your research design and collect data that accurately reflects your inquiry.

In writing your questions, it may help you to refer to this simple flowchart process for constructing questions:

Download Free E-Book 

25 examples of expertly crafted qualitative research questions

It's easy enough to cover the theory of writing a qualitative research question, but sometimes it's best if you can see the process in practice. In this section, we'll list 25 examples of B2B and B2C-related qualitative questions.

Let's begin with five questions. We'll show you the question, explain why it's considered qualitative, and then give you an example of how it can be used in research.

1. What is the customer's perception of our company's brand?

Qualitative research questions are often open-ended and invite respondents to share their thoughts and feelings on a subject. This question is qualitative because it seeks customer feedback on the company's brand. 

This question can be used in research to understand how customers feel about the company's branding, what they like and don't like about it, and whether they would recommend it to others.

2. Why do customers buy our product?

This question is also qualitative because it seeks to understand the customer's motivations for purchasing a product. It can be used in research to identify the reasons  customers buy a certain product, what needs or desires the product fulfills for them, and how they feel about the purchase after using the product.

3. How do our customers interact with our products?

Again, this question is qualitative because it seeks to understand customer behavior. In this case, it can be used in research to see how customers use the product, how they interact with it, and what emotions or thoughts the product evokes in them.

4. What are our customers' biggest frustrations with our products?

By seeking to understand customer frustrations, this question is qualitative and can provide valuable insights. It can be used in research to help identify areas in which the company needs to make improvements with its products.

5. How do our customers feel about our customer service?

Rather than asking why customers like or dislike something, this question asks how they feel. This qualitative question can provide insights into customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a company. 

This type of question can be used in research to understand what customers think of the company's customer service and whether they feel it meets their needs.

20 more examples to refer to when writing your question

Now that you’re aware of what makes certain questions qualitative, let's move into 20 more examples of qualitative research questions:

• How do your customers react when updates are made to your app interface?
• How do customers feel when they complete their purchase through your ecommerce site?
• What are your customers' main frustrations with your service?
• How do people feel about the quality of your products compared to those of your competitors?
• What motivates customers to refer their friends and family members to your product or service?
• What are the main benefits your customers receive from using your product or service?
• How do people feel when they finish a purchase on your website?
• What are the main motivations behind customer loyalty to your brand?
• How does your app make people feel emotionally?
• For younger generations using your app, how does it make them feel about themselves?
• What reputation do people associate with your brand?
• How inclusive do people find your app?
• In what ways are your customers' experiences unique to them?
• What are the main areas of improvement your customers would like to see in your product or service?
• How do people feel about their interactions with your tech team?
• What are the top five reasons people use your online marketplace?
• How does using your app make people feel in terms of connectedness?
• What emotions do people experience when they're using your product or service?
• Aside from the features of your product, what else about it attracts customers?
• How does your company culture make people feel?

As you can see, these kinds of questions are completely open-ended. In a way, they allow the research and discoveries made along the way to direct the research. The questions are merely a starting point from which to explore.

This video offers tips on how to write good qualitative research questions, produced by Qualitative Research Expert, Kimberly Baker.

Wrap-up: crafting your own qualitative research questions.

Over the course of this article, we've explored what qualitative research questions are, why they matter, and how they should be written. Hopefully you now have a clear understanding of how to craft your own.

Remember, qualitative research questions should always be designed to explore a certain experience or phenomena in-depth, in order to generate powerful insights. As you write your questions, be sure to keep the following in mind:

• Are you being inclusive of all relevant perspectives?
• Are your questions specific enough to generate clear answers?
• Will your questions allow for an in-depth exploration of the topic at hand?
• Do the questions reflect your research goals and objectives?

If you can answer "yes" to all of the questions above, and you've followed the tips for writing qualitative research questions we shared in this article, then you're well on your way to crafting powerful queries that will yield valuable insights.

Download Free E-Book

Asking the right questions in the right way is the key to research success. That’s true for not just the discussion guide but for every step of a research project. Following are 100+ questions that will take you from defining your research objective through  screening and participant discussions.

Fill out the form below to access free e-book! 

Recommend Resources:

• How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research
• The Best UX Research Tools of 2022
• 10 Smart Tips for Conducting Better User Interviews
• 50 Powerful Questions You Should Ask In Your Next User Interview
• How To Find Participants For User Research: 13 Ways To Make It Happen
• UX Diary Study: 5 Essential Tips For Conducing Better Studies
• User Testing Recruitment: 10 Smart Tips To Find Participants Fast
• Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25
• How To Successfully Recruit Participants for A Study (2022 Edition)
• How To Properly Recruit Focus Group Participants (2022 Edition)
• The Best Unmoderated Usability Testing Tools of 2022

50 Powerful User Interview Questions You Should Consider Asking

We researched the best user interview questions you can use for your qualitative research studies. Use these 50 sample questions for your next...

A Guide to Usability Testing Questions (Including 100 Examples)

Asking the right questions in the right way is the key to the success of your UX research project. With tips and 100+ question examples, Respondent...

How To ​​Unleash Your Extra Income Potential With Respondent

The number one question we get from new participants is “how can I get invited to participate in more projects.” In this article, we’ll discuss a few...

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Introduction

Why are research questions so important?

Research question examples, types of qualitative research questions, writing a good research question, guiding your research through research questions.

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Research questions

The research question plays a critical role in the research process, as it guides the study design, data collection , analysis , and interpretation of the findings.

A research paper relies on a research question to inform readers of the research topic and the research problem being addressed. Without such a question, your audience may have trouble understanding the rationale for your research project.

People can take for granted the research question as an essential part of a research project. However, explicitly detailing why researchers need a research question can help lend clarity to the research project. Here are some of the key roles that the research question plays in the research process:

Defines the scope and focus of the study

The research question helps to define the scope and focus of the study. It identifies the specific topic or issue that the researcher wants to investigate, and it sets the boundaries for the study. A research question can also help you determine if your study primarily contributes to theory or is more applied in nature. Clinical research and public health research, for example, may be more concerned with research questions that contribute to practice, while a research question focused on cognitive linguistics are aimed at developing theory.

Provides a rationale for the study

The research question provides a rationale for the study by identifying a gap or problem in existing literature or practice that the researcher wants to address. It articulates the purpose and significance of the study, and it explains why the study is important and worth conducting.

Guides the study design

The research question guides the study design by helping the researcher select appropriate research methods , sampling strategies, and data collection tools. It also helps to determine the types of data that need to be collected and the best ways to analyze and interpret the data because the principal aim of the study is to provide an answer to that research question.

Shapes the data analysis and interpretation

The research question shapes the data analysis and interpretation by guiding the selection of appropriate analytical methods and by focusing the interpretation of the findings. It helps to identify which patterns and themes in the data are more relevant and worth digging into, and it guides the development of conclusions and recommendations based on the findings.

Generates new knowledge

The research question is the starting point for generating new knowledge. By answering the research question, the researcher contributes to the body of knowledge in the field and helps to advance the understanding of the topic or issue under investigation.

Overall, the research question is a critical component of the research process, as it guides the study from start to finish and provides a foundation for generating new knowledge.

Supports the thesis statement

The thesis statement or main assertion in any research paper stems from the answers to the research question. As a result, you can think of a focused research question as a preview of what the study aims to present as a new contribution to existing knowledge.

Here area few examples of focused research questions that can help set the stage for explaining different types of research questions in qualitative research . These questions touch upon various fields and subjects, showcasing the versatility and depth of research.

• What factors contribute to the job satisfaction of remote workers in the technology industry?
• How do teachers perceive the implementation of technology in the classroom, and what challenges do they face?
• What coping strategies do refugees use to deal with the challenges of resettlement in a new country?
• How does gentrification impact the sense of community and identity among long-term residents in urban neighborhoods?
• In what ways do social media platforms influence body image and self-esteem among adolescents?
• How do family dynamics and communication patterns affect the management of type 2 diabetes in adult patients?
• What is the role of mentorship in the professional development and career success of early-career academics?
• How do patients with chronic illnesses experience and navigate the healthcare system, and what barriers do they encounter?
• What are the motivations and experiences of volunteers in disaster relief efforts, and how do these experiences impact their future involvement in humanitarian work?
• How do cultural beliefs and values shape the consumer preferences and purchasing behavior of young adults in a globalized market?
• How do individuals whose genetic factors predict a high risk for developing a specific medical condition perceive, cope with, and make lifestyle choices based on this information?

These example research questions highlight the different kinds of inquiries common to qualitative research. They also demonstrate how qualitative research can address a wide range of topics, from understanding the experiences of specific populations to examining the impact of broader social and cultural phenomena.

Also, notice that these types of research questions tend to be geared towards inductive analyses that describe a concept in depth or develop new theory. As such, qualitative research questions tend to ask "what," "why," or "how" types of questions. This contrasts with quantitative research questions that typically aim to verify an existing theory. and tend to ask "when," "how much," and "why" types of questions to nail down causal mechanisms and generalizable findings.

Whatever your research inquiry, turn to ATLAS.ti

Powerful tools to help turn your research question into meaningful analysis, starting with a free trial.

As you can see above, the research questions you ask play a critical role in shaping the direction and depth of your study. These questions are designed to explore, understand, and interpret social phenomena, rather than testing a hypothesis or quantifying data like in quantitative research. In this section, we will discuss the various types of research questions typically found in qualitative research, making it easier for you to craft appropriate questions for your study.

Descriptive questions

Descriptive research questions aim to provide a detailed account of the phenomenon being studied. These questions usually begin with "what" or "how" and seek to understand the nature, characteristics, or functions of a subject. For example, "What are the experiences of first-generation college students?" or "How do small business owners adapt to economic downturns?"

Comparative questions

Comparative questions seek to examine the similarities and differences between two or more groups, cases, or phenomena. These questions often include the words "compare," "contrast," or "differences." For example, "How do parenting practices differ between single-parent and two-parent families?" or "What are the similarities and differences in leadership styles among successful female entrepreneurs?"

Exploratory questions

Exploratory research questions are open-ended and intended to investigate new or understudied areas. These questions aim to identify patterns, relationships, or themes that may warrant further investigation. For example, "How do teenagers use social media to construct their identities?" or "What factors influence the adoption of renewable energy technologies in rural communities?"

Explanatory questions

Explanatory research questions delve deeper into the reasons or explanations behind a particular phenomenon or behavior. They often start with "why" or "how" and aim to uncover underlying motivations, beliefs, or processes. For example, "Why do some employees resist organizational change?" or "How do cultural factors influence decision-making in international business negotiations?"

Evaluative questions

Evaluative questions assess the effectiveness, impact, or outcomes of a particular intervention, program, or policy. They seek to understand the value or significance of an initiative by examining its successes, challenges, or unintended consequences. For example, "How effective is the school's anti-bullying program in reducing incidents of bullying?" or "What are the long-term impacts of a community-based health promotion campaign on residents' well-being?"

Interpretive questions

Interpretive questions focus on understanding how individuals or groups make sense of their experiences, actions, or social contexts. These questions often involve the analysis of language, symbols, or narratives to uncover the meanings and perspectives that shape human behavior. For example, "How do cancer survivors make sense of their illness journey?" or "What meanings do members of a religious community attach to their rituals and practices?"

There are mainly two overarching ways to think about how to devise a research question. Many studies are built on existing research, but others can be founded on personal experiences or pilot research.

Using the literature review

Within scholarly research, the research question is often built from your literature review . An analysis of the relevant literature reporting previous studies should allow you to identify contextual, theoretical, or methodological gaps that can be addressed in future research.

A compelling research question built on a robust literature review ultimately illustrates to your audience what is novel about your study's objectives.

Conducting pilot research

Researchers may conduct preliminary research or pilot research when they are interested in a particular topic but don't yet have a basis for forming a research question on that topic. A pilot study is a small-scale, preliminary study that is conducted in order to test the feasibility of a research design, methods, and procedures. It can help identify unresolved puzzles that merit further investigation, and pilot studies can draw attention to potential issues or problems that may arise in the full study.

One potential benefit of conducting a pilot study in qualitative research is that it can help the researcher to refine their research question. By collecting and analyzing a small amount of data, the researcher can get a better sense of the phenomenon under investigation and can develop a more focused and refined research question for the full study. The pilot study can also help the researcher to identify key themes, concepts, or variables that should be included in the research question.

In addition to helping to refine the research question, a pilot study can also help the researcher to develop a more effective data collection and analysis plan. The researcher can test different methods for collecting and analyzing data, and can make adjustments based on the results of the pilot study. This can help to ensure that the full study is conducted in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

Overall, conducting a pilot study in qualitative research can be a valuable tool for refining the research question and developing a more effective research design, methods, and procedures. It can help to ensure that the full study is conducted in a rigorous and effective manner, and can increase the likelihood of generating meaningful and useful findings.

When you write a research question for your qualitative study, consider which type of question best aligns with your research objectives and the nature of the phenomenon you are investigating. Remember, qualitative research questions should be open-ended, allowing for a range of perspectives and insights to emerge. As you progress in your research, these questions may evolve or be refined based on the data you collect, helping to guide your analysis and deepen your understanding of the topic.

Use ATLAS.ti for every step of your research project

From the research question to the key insights, ATLAS.ti is there for you. See how with a free trial.

• (855) 776-7763

Training Maker

All Products

Qualaroo Insights

ProProfs.com

• Get Started Free

FREE. All Features. FOREVER!

Try our Forever FREE account with all premium features!

How to Write Qualitative Research Questions: Types & Examples

Market Research Specialist

Emma David, a seasoned market research professional, specializes in employee engagement, survey administration, and data management. Her expertise in leveraging data for informed decisions has positively impacted several brands, enhancing their market position.

Qualitative research questions focus on depth and quality, exploring the “why and how” behind decisions, without relying on statistical tools.

Unlike quantitative research, which aims to collect tangible, measurable data from a broader demographic, qualitative analysis involves smaller, focused datasets, identifying patterns for insights.

The information collected by qualitative surveys can vary from text to images, demanding a deep understanding of the subject, and therefore, crafting precise qualitative research questions is crucial for success.

In this guide, we’ll discuss how to write effective qualitative research questions, explore various types, and highlight characteristics of good qualitative research questions.

Let’s dive in!

What Are Qualitative Research Questions?

Qualitative questions aim to understand the depth and nuances of a phenomenon, focusing on “why” and “how” rather than quantifiable measures.

They explore subjective experiences, perspectives, and behaviors, often using open-ended inquiries to gather rich, descriptive data.

Unlike quantitative questions, which seek numerical data, qualitative questions try to find out meanings, patterns, and underlying processes within a specific context.

These questions are essential for exploring complex issues, generating hypotheses, and gaining deeper insights into human behavior and phenomena.

Here’s an example of a qualitative research question:

“How do you perceive and navigate organizational culture within a tech startup environment?”

This question asks about the respondent’s subjective interpretations and experiences of organizational culture within a specific context, such as a tech startup.

It seeks to uncover insights into the values, norms, and practices that shape workplace dynamics and employee behaviors, providing qualitative data for analysis and understanding.

When Should We Use Qualitative Research Questions?

Qualitative research questions typically aim to open up conversations, encourage detailed narratives, and foster a deep understanding of the subject matter. Here are some scenarios they are best suited for:

• Exploring Complex Phenomena : When the research topic involves understanding complex processes, behaviors, or interactions that cannot be quantified easily, qualitative questions help delve into these intricate details.
• Understanding Contexts and Cultures : To grasp the nuances of different social contexts, cultures, or subcultures, qualitative research questions allow for an in-depth exploration of these environments and how they influence individuals and groups.
• Exploring Perceptions and Experiences : When the aim is to understand people’s perceptions, experiences, or feelings about a particular subject, qualitative questions facilitate capturing the depth and variety of these perspectives.
• Developing Concepts or Theories : In the early stages of research, where concepts or theories are not yet well-developed, qualitative questions can help generate hypotheses, identify variables, and develop theoretical frameworks based on observations and interpretations.
• Investigating Processes : To understand how processes unfold over time and the factors that influence these processes, qualitative questions are useful for capturing the dynamics and complexities involved.
• Seeking to Understand Change : When researching how individuals or groups experience change, adapt to new circumstances, or make decisions, qualitative research questions can provide insights into the motivations, challenges, and strategies involved.
• Studying Phenomena Not Easily Quantified : For phenomena that are not easily captured through quantitative measures, such as emotions, beliefs, or motivations, qualitative questions can probe these abstract concepts more effectively.
• Addressing Sensitive or Taboo Topics : In studies where topics may be sensitive, controversial, or taboo, qualitative research questions allow for a respectful and empathetic exploration of these subjects, providing space for participants to share their experiences in their own words.

How to Write Qualitative Research Questions?

Read this guide to learn how you can craft well-thought-out qualitative research questions:

1. Begin with Your Research Goals

The first step in formulating qualitative research questions is to have a clear understanding of what you aim to discover or understand through your research. There are two types of qualitative questionnaires or research – Ontological and Epistemological.

Finding out the nature of your research influences all aspects of your research design, including the formulation of research questions.

Subsequently:

• Identify your main objective : Consider the broader context of your study. Are you trying to explore a phenomenon, understand a process, or interpret the meanings behind behaviors? Your main objective should guide the formulation of your questions, ensuring they are aligned with what you seek to achieve.
• Focus on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ : Qualitative research is inherently exploratory and aims to understand the nuances of human behavior and experience. Starting your questions with “how” or “why” encourages a deeper investigation into the motivations, processes, and contexts underlying the subject matter. This approach facilitates an open-ended exploration, allowing participants to provide rich, detailed responses that illuminate their perspectives and experiences.

Take a quick look at the following visual for a better understanding:

So, if you are doing Ontological research, ensure that the questions focus on the “what” aspects of reality (the premise of your research) and opt for the nature of the knowledge for Epistemological research.

2. Choose the Right Structure

The structure of your research questions significantly impacts the depth and quality of data you collect. Opting for an open-ended format allows respondents the flexibility to express themselves freely, providing insights that pre-defined answers might miss.

• Open-ended format : These questions do not constrain respondents to a set of predetermined answers, unlike closed-ended questions. By allowing participants to articulate their thoughts in their own words, you can uncover nuances and complexities in their responses that might otherwise be overlooked.
• Avoid yes/no questions : Yes/no questions tend to limit the depth of responses. While they might be useful for gathering straightforward factual information, they are not conducive to exploring the depths and nuances that qualitative research seeks to uncover. Encouraging participants to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives leads to richer, more informative data.

For example, take a look at some qualitative questions examples shown in the following image:

3. Be Clear and Specific

Clarity and specificity in your questions are crucial to ensure that participants understand what is being asked and that their responses are relevant to your research objectives.

• Use clear language : Use straightforward, understandable language in your questions. Avoid jargon, acronyms, or overly technical terms that might confuse participants or lead to misinterpretation. The goal is to make your questions accessible to everyone involved in your study.
• Be specific : While maintaining the open-ended nature of qualitative questions, it’s important to narrow down your focus to specific aspects of the phenomenon you’re studying. This specificity helps guide participants’ responses and ensures that the data you collect directly relates to your research objectives.

4. Ensure Relevance and Feasibility

Each question should be carefully considered for its relevance to your research goals and its feasibility, given the constraints of your study.

• Relevance : Questions should be crafted to address the core objectives of your research directly. They should probe areas that are essential to understanding the phenomenon under investigation and should align with your theoretical framework or literature review findings.
• Feasibility : Consider the practical aspects of your research, including the time available for data collection and analysis, resources, and access to participants. Questions should be designed to elicit meaningful responses within the constraints of your study, ensuring that you can gather and analyze data effectively.

5. Focus on a Single Concept or Theme per Question

To ensure clarity and depth, each question should concentrate on a single idea or theme. However, if your main qualitative research question is tough to understand or has a complex structure, you can create sub-questions in limited numbers and with a “ladder structure”.

This will help your respondents understand the overall research objective in mind, and your research can be executed in a better manner.

For example, suppose your main question is – “What is the current state of illiteracy in your state?”

Then, you can create the following subquestions: 

“How does illiteracy block progress in your state?”

“How would you best describe the feelings you have about illiteracy in your state?”

For an even better understanding, you can see the various qualitative research question examples in the following image:

Types of Qualitative Research Questions With Examples

Qualitative survey questions primarily focus on a specific group of respondents that are participating in case studies, surveys, ethnography studies, etc., rather than numbers or statistics.

As a result, the questions are mostly open-ended and can be subdivided into the following types as discussed below:

1. Descriptive Questions

Descriptive research questions aim to detail the “what” of a phenomenon, providing a comprehensive overview of the context, individuals, or situations under study. These questions are foundational, helping to establish a baseline understanding of the research topic.

• What are the daily experiences of teachers in urban elementary schools?
• What strategies do small businesses employ to adapt to rapid technological changes?
• How do young adults describe their transition from college to the workforce?
• What are the coping mechanisms of families with members suffering from chronic illnesses?
• How do community leaders perceive the impact of gentrification in their neighborhoods?

2. Interpretive Questions

Interpretive questions seek to understand the “how” and “why” behind a phenomenon, focusing on the meanings people attach to their experiences. These questions delve into the subjective interpretations and perceptions of participants.

• How do survivors of natural disasters interpret their experiences of recovery and rebuilding?
• Why do individuals engage in voluntary work within their communities?
• How do parents interpret and navigate the challenges of remote schooling for their children?
• Why do consumers prefer local products over global brands in certain markets?
• How do artists interpret the influence of digital media on traditional art forms?

3. Comparative Questions

Comparative research questions are designed to explore differences and similarities between groups, settings, or time periods. These questions can help to highlight the impact of specific variables on the phenomenon under study.

• How do the strategies for managing work-life balance compare between remote and office workers?
• What are the differences in consumer behavior towards sustainable products in urban versus rural areas?
• How do parenting styles in single-parent households compare to those in dual-parent households?
• What are the similarities and differences in leadership styles across different cultures?
• How has the perception of online privacy changed among teenagers over the past decade?

4. Process-oriented Questions

These questions focus on understanding the processes or sequences of events over time. They aim to uncover the “how” of a phenomenon, tracing the development, changes, or evolution of specific situations or behaviors.

• How do non-profit organizations develop and implement community outreach programs?
• What is the process of decision-making in high-stakes business environments?
• How do individuals navigate the process of career transition after significant industry changes?
• What are the stages of adaptation for immigrants in a new country?
• How do social movements evolve from inception to national recognition?

5. Evaluative Questions

Evaluative questions aim to assess the effectiveness, value, or impact of a program, policy, or phenomenon. These questions are critical for understanding the outcomes and implications of various initiatives or situations.

• How effective are online therapy sessions compared to in-person sessions in treating anxiety?
• What is the impact of community gardening programs on neighborhood cohesion?
• How do participants evaluate the outcomes of leadership training programs in their professional development?
• What are the perceived benefits and drawbacks of telecommuting for employees and employers?
• How do residents evaluate the effectiveness of local government policies on waste management?

6. One-on-One Questions

The one-on-one questions are asked to a single person and can be thought of as individual interviews that you can conduct online via phone and video chat as well.

The main aim of such questions is to ask your customers or people in the focus group a series of questions about their purchase motivations. These questions might also come with follow-ups, and if your customers respond with some interesting fact or detail, dig deeper and explore the findings as much as you want.

• What makes you happy in regard to [your research topic]?
• If I could make a wish of yours come true, what do you desire the most?
• What do you still find hard to come to terms with?
• Have you bought [your product] before?
• If so, what was your initial motivation behind the purchase?

7. Exploratory Questions

These questions are designed to enhance your understanding of a particular topic. However, while asking exploratory questions, you must ensure that there are no preconceived notions or biases to it. The more transparent and bias-free your questions are, the better and fair results you will get.

• What is the effect of personal smart devices on today’s youth?
• Do you feel that smart devices have positively or negatively impacted you?
• How do your kids spend their weekends?
• What do you do on a typical weekend morning?

8. Predictive Questions

The predictive questions are used for qualitative research that is focused on the future outcomes of an action or a series of actions. So, you will be using past information to predict the reactions of respondents to hypothetical events that might or might not happen in the future.

These questions come in extremely handy for identifying your customers’ current brand expectations, pain points, and purchase motivation.

• Are you more likely to buy a product when a celebrity promotes it?
• Would you ever try a new product because one of your favorite celebs claims that it actually worked for them?
• Would people in your neighborhood enjoy a park with rides and exercise options?
• How often would you go to a park with your kids if it had free rides?

9. Focus Groups

These questions are mostly asked in person to the customer or respondent groups. The in-person nature of these surveys or studies ensures that the group members get a safe and comfortable environment to express their thoughts and feelings about your brand or services.

• How would you describe your ease of using our product?
• How well do you think you were able to do this task before you started using our product?
• What do you like about our promotional campaigns?
• How well do you think our ads convey the meaning?

10. In-Home Videos

Collecting video feedback from customers in their comfortable, natural settings offers a unique perspective. At home, customers are more relaxed and less concerned about their mannerisms, posture, and choice of words when responding.

This approach is partly why Vogue’s 73 Questions Series is highly popular among celebrities and viewers alike. In-home videos provide insights into customers in a relaxed environment, encouraging them to be honest and share genuine experiences.

• What was your first reaction when you used our product for the first time?
• How well do you think our product performed compared to your expectations?
• What was your worst experience with our product?
• What made you switch to our brand?

11. Online Focus Groups

Online focus groups mirror the traditional, in-person format but are conducted virtually, offering a more cost-effective and efficient approach to gathering data. This digital format extends your reach and allows a rapid collection of responses from a broader audience through online platforms.

You can utilize social media and other digital forums to create communities of respondents and initiate meaningful discussions. Once you have them started, you can simply observe the exchange of thoughts and gather massive amounts of interesting insights!

• What do you like best about our product?
• How familiar are you with this particular service or product we offer?
• What are your concerns with our product?
• What changes can we make to make our product better?

Ask the Right Qualitative Research Questions for Meaningful Insights From Your Respondents

Watch: How to Create a Survey Using ProProfs Survey Maker

By now, you might have realized that manually creating a list of qualitative research questions is a daunting task. Keeping numerous considerations in mind, it’s easy to run out of ideas while crafting qualitative survey questions .

However, investing in smart survey tools, like ProProfs Survey Maker, can significantly streamline this process, allowing you to create various types of surveys in minutes.

With this survey tool , you can generate forms, NPS surveys , tests, quizzes, and assessments.

It’s also useful for conducting polls, sidebar surveys, and in-app surveys. Offering over 100 templates and more than 1,000,000 ready-to-use examples of phenomenological research questions, this software simplifies the task immensely.

Equipped with the right tools and the professional tips shared here, you’re well-prepared to conduct thorough research studies and obtain valuable insights that drive impactful results.

Frequently Asked Questions on Q ualitative Research Questions

1. how do you choose qualitative research questions.

To choose qualitative research questions, identify your main research goal, focus on exploring ‘how’ and ‘why’ aspects, ensure questions are open-ended, and align them with your theoretical framework and methodology.

2. Why are good qualitative research questions important?

Good qualitative research questions are important because they guide the research focus, enable the exploration of depth and complexity, and facilitate the gathering of rich, detailed insights into human experiences and behaviors.

About the author

Emma David is a seasoned market research professional with 8+ years of experience. Having kick-started her journey in research, she has developed rich expertise in employee engagement, survey creation and administration, and data management. Emma believes in the power of data to shape business performance positively. She continues to help brands and businesses make strategic decisions and improve their market standing through her understanding of research methodologies.

Related Posts

75+ Human Resources Survey Questions To Ask Your Employees

Dodging the Bad Survey Questions: Key Mistakes to Avoid in Your Surveys

How to Write Quantitative Research Questions: Types With Examples

How to Create Rating Scale Surveys: Benefits, Types & Examples

40+ Mental Health Survey Questions With Templates

150+ Poll Questions to Engage Your Target Audience

Chapter 4. Finding a Research Question and Approaches to Qualitative Research

We’ve discussed the research design process in general and ways of knowing favored by qualitative researchers.  In chapter 2, I asked you to think about what interests you in terms of a focus of study, including your motivations and research purpose.  It might be helpful to start this chapter with those short paragraphs you wrote about motivations and purpose in front of you.  We are now going to try to develop those interests into actual research questions (first part of this chapter) and then choose among various “traditions of inquiry” that will be best suited to answering those questions.  You’ve already been introduced to some of this (in chapter 1), but we will go further here.

Developing a Research Question

Research questions are different from general questions people have about the social world.  They are narrowly tailored to fit a very specific issue, complete with context and time boundaries.  Because we are engaged in empirical science and thus use “data” to answer our questions, the questions we ask must be answerable by data.  A question is not the same as stating a problem.  The point of the entire research project is to answer a particular question or set of questions.  The question(s) should be interesting, relevant, practical, and ethical.  Let’s say I am generally interested in the problem of student loan debt.  That’s a good place to start, but we can’t simply ask,

General question: Is student loan debt really a problem today?

How could we possibly answer that question? What data could we use? Isn’t this really an axiological (values-based) question? There are no clues in the question as to what data would be appropriate here to help us get started. Students often begin with these large unanswerable questions. They are not research questions. Instead, we could ask,

Poor research question: How many people have debt?

This is still not a very good research question. Why not? It is answerable, although we would probably want to clarify the context. We could add some context to improve it so that the question now reads,

Mediocre research question: How many people in the US have debt today? And does this amount vary by age and location?

Now we have added some context, so we have a better idea of where to look and who to look at. But this is still a pretty poor or mediocre research question. Why is that? Let’s say we did answer it. What would we really know? Maybe we would find out that student loan debt has increased over time and that young people today have more of it. We probably already know this. We don’t really want to go through a lot of trouble answering a question whose answer we already have. In fact, part of the reason we are even asking this question is that we know (or think) it is a problem. Instead of asking what you already know, ask a question to which you really do not know the answer. I can’t stress this enough, so I will say it again: Ask a question to which you do not already know the answer . The point of research is not to prove or make a point but to find out something unknown. What about student loan debt is still a mystery to you? Reviewing the literature could help (see chapter 9). By reviewing the literature, you can get a good sense of what is still mysterious or unknown about student loan debt, and you won’t be reinventing the wheel when you conduct your research. Let’s say you review the literature, and you are struck by the fact that we still don’t understand the true impact of debt on how people are living their lives. A possible research question might be,

Fair research question: What impact does student debt have on the lives of debtors?

Good start, but we still need some context to help guide the project. It is not nearly specific enough.

Better research question: What impact does student debt have on young adults (ages twenty-five to thirty-five) living in the US today?

Now we’ve added context, but we can still do a little bit better in narrowing our research question so that it is both clear and doable; in other words, we want to frame it in a way that provides a very clear research program:

Optimal research question: How do young adults (ages twenty-five to thirty-five) living in the US today who have taken on $30,000 or more in student debt describe the impact of their debt on their lives in terms of finding/choosing a job, buying a house, getting married, and other major life events?

Now you have a research question that can be answered and a clear plan of how to answer it. You will talk to young adults living in the US today who have high debt loads and ask them to describe the impacts of debt on their lives. That is all now in the research question. Note how different this very specific question is from where we started with the “problem” of student debt.

Take some time practicing turning the following general questions into research questions:

• What can be done about the excessive use of force by police officers?
• Why haven’t societies taken firmer steps to address climate change?
• How do communities react to / deal with the opioid epidemic?
• Who has been the most adversely affected by COVID?
• When did political polarization get so bad?

Hint: Step back from each of the questions and try to articulate a possible underlying motivation, then formulate a research question that is specific and answerable.

It is important to take the time to come up with a research question, even if this research question changes a bit as you conduct your research (yes, research questions can change!). If you don’t have a clear question to start your research, you are likely to get very confused when designing your study because you will not be able to make coherent decisions about things like samples, sites, methods of data collection, and so on. Your research question is your anchor: “If we don’t have a question, we risk the possibility of going out into the field thinking we know what we’ll find and looking only for proof of what we expect to be there. That’s not empirical research (it’s not systematic)” ( Rubin 2021:37 ).

Researcher Note

How do you come up with ideas for what to study?

I study what surprises me. Usually, I come across a statistic that suggests something is common that I thought was rare. I tend to think it’s rare because the theories I read suggest it should be, and there’s not a lot of work in that area that helps me understand how the statistic came to be. So, for example, I learned that it’s common for Americans to marry partners who grew up in a different class than them and that about half of White kids born into the upper-middle class are downwardly mobile. I was so shocked by these facts that they naturally led to research questions. How do people come to marry someone who grew up in a different class? How do White kids born near the top of the class structure fall?

—Jessi Streib, author of The Power of the Past and Privilege Lost

What if you have literally no idea what the research question should be? How do you find a research question? Even if you have an interest in a topic before you get started, you see the problem now: topics and issues are not research questions! A research question doesn’t easily emerge; it takes a lot of time to hone one, as the practice above should demonstrate. In some research designs, the research question doesn’t even get clearly articulated until the end of data collection . More on that later. But you must start somewhere, of course. Start with your chosen discipline. This might seem obvious, but it is often overlooked. There is a reason it is called a discipline. We tend to think of “sociology,” “public health,” and “physics” as so many clusters of courses that are linked together by subject matter, but they are also disciplines in the sense that the study of each focuses the mind in a particular way and for particular ends. For example, in my own field, sociology, there is a loosely shared commitment to social justice and a general “sociological imagination” that enables its practitioners to connect personal experiences to society at large and to historical forces. It is helpful to think of issues and questions that are germane to your discipline. Within that overall field, there may be a particular course or unit of study you found most interesting. Within that course or unit of study, there may be an issue that intrigued you. And finally, within that issue, there may be an aspect or topic that you want to know more about.

When I was pursuing my dissertation research, I was asked often, “Why did you choose to study intimate partner violence among Native American women?” This question is necessary, and each time I answered, it helped shape me into a better researcher. I was interested in intimate partner violence because I am a survivor. I didn’t have intentions to work with a particular population or demographic—that came from my own deep introspection on my role as a researcher. I always questioned my positionality: What privileges do I hold as an academic? How has public health extracted information from institutionally marginalized populations? How can I build bridges between communities using my position, knowledge, and power? Public health as a field would not exist without the contributions of Indigenous people. So I started hanging out with them at community events, making friends, and engaging in self-education. Through these organic relationships built with Native women in the community, I saw that intimate partner violence was a huge issue. This led me to partner with Indigenous organizations to pursue a better understanding of how Native survivors of intimate partner violence seek support.

—Susanna Y. Park, PhD, mixed-methods researcher in public health and author of “How Native Women Seek Support as Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study”

One of the most exciting and satisfying things about doing academic research is that whatever you end up researching can become part of the body of knowledge that we have collectively created. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you are doing this all on your own from scratch. Without even being aware of it, no matter if you are a first-year undergraduate student or a fourth-year graduate student, you have been trained to think certain questions are interesting. The very fact that you are majoring in a particular field or have signed up for years of graduate study in a program testifies to some level of commitment to a discipline. What we are looking for, ideally, is that your research builds on in some way (as extension, as critique, as lateral move) previous research and so adds to what we, collectively, understand about the social world. It is helpful to keep this in mind, as it may inspire you and also help guide you through the process. The point is, you are not meant to be doing something no one has ever thought of before, even if you are trying to find something that does not exactly duplicate previous research: “You may be trying to be too clever—aiming to come up with a topic unique in the history of the universe, something that will have people swooning with admiration at your originality and intellectual precociousness. Don’t do it. It’s safer…to settle on an ordinary, middle-of-the-road topic that will lend itself to a nicely organized process of project management. That’s the clever way of proceeding.… You can always let your cleverness shine through during the stages of design, analysis, and write-up. Don’t make things more difficult for yourself than you need to do” ( Davies 2007:20 ).

Rubin ( 2021 ) suggests four possible ways to develop a research question (there are many more, of course, but this can get you started). One way is to start with a theory that interests you and then select a topic where you can apply that theory. For example, you took a class on gender and society and learned about the “glass ceiling.” You could develop a study that tests that theory in a setting that has not yet been explored—maybe leadership at the Oregon Country Fair. The second way is to start with a topic that interests you and then go back to the books to find a theory that might explain it. This is arguably more difficult but often much more satisfying. Ask your professors for help—they might have ideas of theories or concepts that could be relevant or at least give you an idea of what books to read. The third way is to be very clever and select a question that already combines the topic and the theory. Rubin gives as one example sentencing disparities in criminology—this is both a topic and a theory or set of theories. You then just have to figure out particulars like setting and sample. I don’t know if I find this third way terribly helpful, but it might help you think through the possibilities. The fourth way involves identifying a puzzle or a problem, which can be either theoretical (something in the literature just doesn’t seem to make sense and you want to tackle addressing it) or empirical (something happened or is happening, and no one really understands why—think, for example, of mass school shootings).

Once you think you have an issue or topic that is worth exploring, you will need to (eventually) turn that into a good research question. A good research question is specific, clear, and feasible .

Specific . How specific a research question needs to be is somewhat related to the disciplinary conventions and whether the study is conceived inductively or deductively. In deductive research, one begins with a specific research question developed from the literature. You then collect data to test the theory or hypotheses accompanying your research question. In inductive research, however, one begins with data collection and analysis and builds theory from there. So naturally, the research question is a bit vaguer. In general, the more closely aligned to the natural sciences (and thus the deductive approach), the more a very tight and specific research question (along with specific, focused hypotheses) is required. This includes disciplines like psychology, geography, public health, environmental science, and marine resources management. The more one moves toward the humanities pole (and the inductive approach), the more looseness is permitted, as there is a general belief that we go into the field to find what is there, not necessarily what we imagine we are looking for (see figure 4.2). Disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and gender and sexuality studies and some subdisciplines of public policy/public administration are closer to the humanities pole in this sense.

Regardless of discipline and approach, however, it is a good idea for beginning researchers to create a research question as specific as possible, as this will serve as your guide throughout the process. You can tweak it later if needed, but start with something specific enough that you know what it is you are doing and why. It is more difficult to deal with ambiguity when you are starting out than later in your career, when you have a better handle on what you are doing. Being under a time constraint means the more specific the question, the better. Questions should always specify contexts, geographical locations, and time frames. Go back to your practice research questions and make sure that these are included.

Clear . A clear research question doesn’t only need to be intelligible to any reader (which, of course, it should); it needs to clarify any meanings of particular words or concepts (e.g., What is excessive force?). Check all your concepts to see if there are ways you can clarify them further—for example, note that we shifted from impact of debt to impact of high debt load and specified this as beginning at $30,000. Ideally, we would use the literature to help us clarify what a high debt load is or how to define “excessive” force.

Feasible . In order to know if your question is feasible, you are going to have to think a little bit about your entire research design. For example, a question that asks about the real-time impact of COVID restrictions on learning outcomes would require a time machine. You could tweak the question to ask instead about the long-term impacts of COVID restrictions, as measured two years after their end. Or let’s say you are interested in assessing the damage of opioid abuse on small-town communities across the United States. Is it feasible to cover the entire US? You might need a team of researchers to do this if you are planning on on-the-ground observations. Perhaps a case study of one particular community might be best. Then your research question needs to be changed accordingly.

Here are some things to consider in terms of feasibility:

• Is the question too general for what you actually intend to do or examine? (Are you specifying the world when you only have time to explore a sliver of that world?)
• Is the question suitable for the time you have available? (You will need different research questions for a study that can be completed in a term than one where you have one to two years, as in a master’s program, or even three to eight years, as in a doctoral program.)
• Is the focus specific enough that you know where and how to begin?
• What are the costs involved in doing this study, including time? Will you need to travel somewhere, and if so, how will you pay for it?
• Will there be problems with “access”? (More on this in later chapters, but for now, consider how you might actually find people to interview or places to observe and whether gatekeepers exist who might keep you out.)
• Will you need to submit an application proposal for your university’s IRB (institutional review board)? If you are doing any research with live human subjects, you probably need to factor in the time and potential hassle of an IRB review (see chapter 8). If you are under severe time constraints, you might need to consider developing a research question that can be addressed with secondary sources, online content, or historical archives (see chapters 16 and 17).

In addition to these practicalities, you will also want to consider the research question in terms of what is best for you now. Are you engaged in research because you are required to be—jumping a hurdle for a course or for your degree? If so, you really do want to think about your project as training and develop a question that will allow you to practice whatever data collection and analysis techniques you want to develop. For example, if you are a grad student in a public health program who is interested in eventually doing work that requires conducting interviews with patients, develop a research question and research design that is interview based. Focus on the practicality (and practice) of the study more than the theoretical impact or academic contribution, in other words. On the other hand, if you are a PhD candidate who is seeking an academic position in the future, your research question should be pitched in a way to build theoretical knowledge as well (the phrasing is typically “original contribution to scholarship”).

The more time you have to devote to the study and the larger the project, the more important it is to reflect on your own motivations and goals when crafting a research question (remember chapter 2?). By “your own motivations and goals,” I mean what interests you about the social world and what impact you want your research to have, both academically and practically speaking. Many students have secret (or not-so-secret) plans to make the world a better place by helping address climate change, pointing out pressure points to fight inequities, or bringing awareness to an overlooked area of concern. My own work in graduate school was motivated by the last of these three—the not-so-secret goal of my research was to raise awareness about obstacles to success for first-generation and working-class college students. This underlying goal motivated me to complete my dissertation in a timely manner and then to further continue work in this area and see my research get published. I cared enough about the topic that I was not ready to put it away. I am still not ready to put it away. I encourage you to find topics that you can’t put away, ever. That will keep you going whenever things get difficult in the research process, as they inevitably will.

On the other hand, if you are an undergraduate and you really have very little time, some of the best advice I have heard is to find a study you really like and adapt it to a new context. Perhaps you read a study about how students select majors and how this differs by class ( Hurst 2019 ). You can try to replicate the study on a small scale among your classmates. Use the same research question, but revise for your context. You can probably even find the exact questions I  used and ask them in the new sample. Then when you get to the analysis and write-up, you have a comparison study to guide you, and you can say interesting things about the new context and whether the original findings were confirmed (similar) or not. You can even propose reasons why you might have found differences between one and the other.

Another way of thinking about research questions is to explicitly tie them to the type of purpose of your study. Of course, this means being very clear about what your ultimate purpose is! Marshall and Rossman ( 2016 ) break down the purpose of a study into four categories: exploratory, explanatory, descriptive, and emancipatory ( 78 ). Exploratory purpose types include wanting to investigate little-understood phenomena, or identifying or discovering important new categories of meaning, or generating hypotheses for further research. For these, research questions might be fairly loose: What is going on here? How are people interacting on this site? What do people talk about when you ask them about the state of the world? You are almost (but never entirely) starting from scratch. Be careful though—just because a topic is new to you does not mean it is really new. Someone else (or many other someones) may already have done this exploratory research. Part of your job is to find this out (more on this in “What Is a ‘Literature Review’?” in chapter 9). Descriptive purposes (documenting and describing a phenomenon) are similar to exploratory purposes but with a much clearer goal (description). A good research question for a descriptive study would specify the actions, events, beliefs, attitudes, structures, and/or processes that will be described.

Most researchers find that their topic has already been explored and described, so they move to trying to explain a relationship or phenomenon. For these, you will want research questions that capture the relationships of interest. For example, how does gender influence one’s understanding of police brutality (because we already know from the literature that it does, so now we are interested in understanding how and why)? Or what is the relationship between education and climate change denialism? If you find that prior research has already provided a lot of evidence about those relationships as well as explanations for how they work, and you want to move the needle past explanation into action, you might find yourself trying to conduct an emancipatory study. You want to be even more clear in acknowledging past research if you find yourself here. Then create a research question that will allow you to “create opportunities and the will to engage in social action” ( Marshall and Rossman 2016:78 ). Research questions might ask, “How do participants problematize their circumstances and take positive social action?” If we know that some students have come together to fight against student debt, how are they doing this, and with what success? Your purpose would be to help evaluate possibilities for social change and to use your research to make recommendations for more successful emancipatory actions.

Recap: Be specific. Be clear. Be practical. And do what you love.

Choosing an Approach or Tradition

Qualitative researchers may be defined as those who are working with data that is not in numerical form, but there are actually multiple traditions or approaches that fall under this broad category. I find it useful to know a little bit about the history and development of qualitative research to better understand the differences in these approaches. The following chart provides an overview of the six phases of development identified by Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ):

Table 4.1. Six Phases of Development

There are other ways one could present the history as well. Feminist theory and methodologies came to the fore in the 1970s and 1980s and had a lot to do with the internal critique of more positivist approaches. Feminists were quite aware that standpoint matters—that the identity of the researcher plays a role in the research, and they were ardent supporters of dismantling unjust power systems and using qualitative methods to help advance this mission. You might note, too, that many of the internal disputes were basically epistemological disputes about how we know what we know and whether one’s social location/position delimits that knowledge. Today, we are in a bountiful world of qualitative research, one that embraces multiple forms of knowing and knowledge. This is good, but it means that you, the student, have more choice when it comes to situating your study and framing your research question, and some will expect you to signal the choices you have made in any research protocols you write or publications and presentations.

Creswell’s ( 1998 ) definition of qualitative research includes the notion of distinct traditions of inquiry: “Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The research builds complex,   holistic pictures, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants , and conducted the study in a natural setting” (15; emphases added). I usually caution my students against taking shelter under one of these approaches, as, practically speaking, there is a lot of mixing of traditions among researchers. And yet it is useful to know something about the various histories and approaches, particularly as you are first starting out. Each tradition tends to favor a particular epistemological perspective (see chapter 3), a way of reasoning (see “ Advanced: Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning ”), and a data-collection technique.

There are anywhere from ten to twenty “traditions of inquiry,” depending on how one draws the boundaries. In my accounting, there are twelve, but three approaches tend to dominate the field.

Ethnography

Ethnography was developed from the discipline of anthropology, as the study of (other) culture(s). From a relatively positivist/objective approach to writing down the “truth” of what is observed during the colonial era (where this “truth” was then often used to help colonial administrators maintain order and exploit people and extract resources more effectively), ethnography was adopted by all kinds of social science researchers to get a better understanding of how groups of people (various subcultures and cultures) live their lives. Today, ethnographers are more likely to be seeking to dismantle power relations than to support them. They often study groups of people that are overlooked and marginalized, and sometimes they do the obverse by demonstrating how truly strange the familiar practices of the dominant group are. Ethnography is also central to organizational studies (e.g., How does this institution actually work?) and studies of education (e.g., What is it like to be a student during the COVID era?).

Ethnographers use methods of participant observation and intensive fieldwork in their studies, often living or working among the group under study for months at a time (and, in some cases, years). I’ve called this “deep ethnography,” and it is the subject of chapter 14. The data ethnographers analyze are copious “field notes” written while in the field, often supplemented by in-depth interviews and many more casual conversations. The final product of ethnographers is a “thick” description of the culture. This makes reading ethnographies enjoyable, as the goal is to write in such a way that the reader feels immersed in the culture.

There are variations on the ethnography, such as the autoethnography , where the researcher uses a systematic and rigorous study of themselves to better understand the culture in which they find themselves. Autoethnography is a relatively new approach, even though it is derived from one of the oldest approaches. One can say that it takes to heart the feminist directive to “make the personal political,” to underscore the connections between personal experiences and larger social and political structures. Introspection becomes the primary data source.

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory holds a special place in qualitative research for a few reasons, not least of which is that nonqualitative researchers often mistakenly believe that Grounded Theory is the only qualitative research methodology . Sometimes, it is easier for students to explain what they are doing as “Grounded Theory” because it sounds “more scientific” than the alternative descriptions of qualitative research. This is definitely part of its appeal. Grounded Theory is the name given to the systematic inductive approach first developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Too few people actually read Glaser and Strauss’s book. It is both groundbreaking and fairly unremarkable at the same time. As a historical intervention into research methods generally, it is both a sharp critique of positivist methods in the social sciences (theory testing) and a rejection of purely descriptive accounts-building qualitative research. Glaser and Strauss argued for an approach whose goal was to construct (middle-level) theories from recursive data analysis of nonnumerical data (interviews and observations). They advocated a “constant comparative method” in which coding and analysis take place simultaneously and recursively. The demands are fairly strenuous. If done correctly, the result is the development of a new theory about the social world.

So why do I call this “fairly unremarkable”? To some extent, all qualitative research already does what Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ) recommend, albeit without denoting the processes quite so specifically. As will be seen throughout the rest of this textbook, all qualitative research employs some “constant comparisons” through recursive data analyses. Where Grounded Theory sets itself apart from a significant number of qualitative research projects, however, is in its dedication to inductively building theory. Personally, I think it is important to understand that Glaser and Strauss were rejecting deductive theory testing in sociology when they first wrote their book. They were part of a rising cohort who rejected the positivist mathematical approaches that were taking over sociology journals in the 1950s and 1960s. Here are some of the comments and points they make against this kind of work:

Accurate description and verification are not so crucial when one’s purpose is to generate theory. ( 28 ; further arguing that sampling strategies are different when one is not trying to test a theory or generalize results)

Illuminating perspectives are too often suppressed when the main emphasis is verifying theory. ( 40 )

Testing for statistical significance can obscure from theoretical relevance. ( 201 )

Instead, they argued, sociologists should be building theories about the social world. They are not physicists who spend time testing and refining theories. And they are not journalists who report descriptions. What makes sociologists better than journalists and other professionals is that they develop theory from their work “In their driving efforts to get the facts [research sociologists] tend to forget that the distinctive offering of sociology to our society is sociological theory, not research description” ( 30–31 ).

Grounded Theory’s inductive approach can be off-putting to students who have a general research question in mind and a working hypothesis. The true Grounded Theory approach is often used in exploratory studies where there are no extant theories. After all, the promise of this approach is theory generation, not theory testing. Flying totally free at the start can be terrifying. It can also be a little disingenuous, as there are very few things under the sun that have not been considered before. Barbour ( 2008:197 ) laments that this approach is sometimes used because the researcher is too lazy to read the relevant literature.

To summarize, Glaser and Strauss justified the qualitative research project in a way that gave it standing among the social sciences, especially vis-à-vis quantitative researchers. By distinguishing the constant comparative method from journalism, Glaser and Strauss enabled qualitative research to gain legitimacy.

So what is it exactly, and how does one do it? The following stages provide a succinct and basic overview, differentiating the portions that are similar to/in accordance with qualitative research methods generally and those that are distinct from the Grounded Theory approach:

Step 1. Select a case, sample, and setting (similar—unless you begin with a theory to test!).

Step 2. Begin data collection (similar).

Step 3. Engage data analysis (similar in general but specificity of details somewhat unique to Grounded Theory): (1) emergent coding (initial followed by focused), (2) axial (a priori) coding , (3) theoretical coding , (4) creation of theoretical categories; analysis ends when “theoretical saturation ” has been achieved.

Grounded Theory’s prescriptive (i.e., it has a set of rules) framework can appeal to beginning students, but it is unnecessary to adopt the entire approach in order to make use of some of its suggestions. And if one does not exactly follow the Grounded Theory rulebook, it can mislead others if you tend to call what you are doing Grounded Theory when you are not:

Grounded theory continues to be a misunderstood method, although many researchers purport to use it. Qualitative researchers often claim to conduct grounded theory studies without fully understanding or adopting its distinctive guidelines. They may employ one or two of the strategies or mistake qualitative analysis for grounded theory. Conversely, other researchers employ grounded theory methods in reductionist, mechanistic ways. Neither approach embodies the flexible yet systematic mode of inquiry, directed but open-ended analysis, and imaginative theorizing from empirical data that grounded theory methods can foster. Subsequently, the potential of grounded theory methods for generating middle-range theory has not been fully realized ( Charmaz 2014 ).

Phenomenology

Where Grounded Theory sets itself apart for its inductive systematic approach to data analysis, phenomenologies are distinct for their focus on what is studied—in this case, the meanings of “lived experiences” of a group of persons sharing a particular event or circumstance. There are phenomenologies of being working class ( Charlesworth 2000 ), of the tourist experience ( Cohen 1979 ), of Whiteness ( Ahmed 2007 ). The phenomenon of interest may also be an emotion or circumstance. One can study the phenomenon of “White rage,” for example, or the phenomenon of arranged marriage.

The roots of phenomenology lie in philosophy (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre) but have been adapted by sociologists in particular. Phenomenologists explore “how human beings make sense of experience and transform experience into consciousness, both individually and as shared meaning” ( Patton 2002:104 ).

One of the most important aspects of conducting a good phenomenological study is getting the sample exactly right so that each person can speak to the phenomenon in question. Because the researcher is interested in the meanings of an experience, in-depth interviews are the preferred method of data collection. Observations are not nearly as helpful here because people may do a great number of things without meaning to or without being conscious of their implications. This is important to note because phenomenologists are studying not “the reality” of what happens at all but an articulated understanding of a lived experience. When reading a phenomenological study, it is important to keep this straight—too often I have heard students critique a study because the interviewer didn’t actually see how people’s behavior might conflict with what they say (which is, at heart, an epistemological issue!).

In addition to the “big three,” there are many other approaches; some are variations, and some are distinct approaches in their own right. Case studies focus explicitly on context and dynamic interactions over time and can be accomplished with quantitative or qualitative methods or a mixture of both (for this reason, I am not considering it as one of the big three qualitative methods, even though it is a very common approach). Whatever methods are used, a contextualized deep understanding of the case (or cases) is central.

Critical inquiry is a loose collection of techniques held together by a core argument that understanding issues of power should be the focus of much social science research or, to put this another way, that it is impossible to understand society (its people and institutions) without paying attention to the ways that power relations and power dynamics inform and deform those people and institutions. This attention to power dynamics includes how research is conducted too. All research fundamentally involves issues of power. For this reason, many critical inquiry traditions include a place for collaboration between researcher and researched. Examples include (1) critical narrative analysis, which seeks to describe the meaning of experience for marginalized or oppressed persons or groups through storytelling; (2) participatory action research, which requires collaboration between the researcher and the research subjects or community of interest; and (3) critical race analysis, a methodological application of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which posits that racial oppression is endemic (if not always throughout time and place, at least now and here).

Do you follow a particular tradition of inquiry? Why?

Shawn Wilson’s book, Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods , is my holy grail. It really flipped my understanding of research and relationships. Rather than thinking linearly and approaching research in a more canonical sense, Wilson shook my world view by drawing me into a pattern of inquiry that emphasized transparency and relational accountability. The Indigenous research paradigm is applicable in all research settings, and I follow it because it pushes me to constantly evaluate my position as a knowledge seeker and knowledge sharer.

Autoethnography takes the researcher as the subject. This is one approach that is difficult to explain to more quantitatively minded researchers, as it seems to violate many of the norms of “scientific research” as understood by them. First, the sample size is quite small—the n is 1, the researcher. Two, the researcher is not a neutral observer—indeed, the subjectivity of the researcher is the main strength of this approach. Autoethnographies can be extremely powerful for their depth of understanding and reflexivity, but they need to be conducted in their own version of rigor to stand up to scrutiny by skeptics. If you are skeptical, read one of the excellent published examples out there—I bet you will be impressed with what you take away. As they say, the proof is in the pudding on this approach.

Advanced: Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning

There has been a great deal of ink shed in the discussion of inductive versus deductive approaches, not all of it very instructive. Although there is a huge conceptual difference between them, in practical terms, most researchers cycle between the two, even within the same research project. The simplest way to explain the difference between the two is that we are using deductive reasoning when we test an existing theory (move from general to particular), and we are using inductive reasoning when we are generating theory (move from particular to general). Figure 4.2 provides a schematic of the deductive approach. From the literature, we select a theory about the impact of student loan debt: student loan debt will delay homeownership among young adults. We then formulate a hypothesis based on this theory: adults in their thirties with high debt loads will be less likely to own homes than their peers who do not have high debt loads. We then collect data to test the hypothesis and analyze the results. We find that homeownership is substantially lower among persons of color and those who were the first in their families to graduate from college. Notably, high debt loads did not affect homeownership among White adults whose parents held college degrees. We thus refine the theory to match the new findings: student debt loads delay homeownership among some young adults, thereby increasing inequalities in this generation. We have now contributed new knowledge to our collective corpus.

The inductive approach is contrasted in figure 4.3. Here, we did not begin with a preexisting theory or previous literature but instead began with an observation. Perhaps we were conducting interviews with young adults who held high amounts of debt and stumbled across this observation, struck by how many were renting apartments or small houses. We then noted a pattern—not all the young adults we were talking to were renting; race and class seemed to play a role here. We would then probably expand our study in a way to be able to further test this developing theory, ensuring that we were not seeing anomalous patterns. Once we were confident about our observations and analyses, we would then develop a theory, coming to the same place as our deductive approach, but in reverse.

A third form of reasoning, abductive (sometimes referred to as probabilistic reasoning) was developed in the late nineteenth century by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. I have included some articles for further reading for those interested.

Among social scientists, the deductive approach is often relaxed so that a research question is set based on the existing literature rather than creating a hypothesis or set of hypotheses to test. Some journals still require researchers to articulate hypotheses, however. If you have in mind a publication, it is probably a good idea to take a look at how most articles are organized and whether specific hypotheses statements are included.

Table 4.2. Twelve Approaches. Adapted from Patton 2002:132-133.

Further Readings

The following readings have been examples of various approaches or traditions of inquiry:

Ahmed, Sara. 2007. “A Phenomenology of Whiteness.” Feminist Theory 8(2):149–168.

Charlesworth, Simon. 2000. A Phenomenology of Working-Class Experience . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.*

Clandinin, D. Jean, and F. Michael Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, E. 1979. “A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.” Sociology 13(2):179–201.

Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books. A critique of participatory action.

Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Crabtree, B. F., and W. L. Miller, eds. 1999. Doing Qualitative Research: Multiple Strategies . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, John W. 1997. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York: Aldine.

Gobo, Giampetro, and Andrea Molle. 2008. Doing Ethnography . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hancock, Dawson B., and Bob Algozzine. 2016. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Research . 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harding, Sandra. 1987. Feminism and Methodology . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Husserl, Edmund. (1913) 2017. Ideas: Introduction to Pure Phenomenology . Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books.

Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies . 3rd ed. London: SAGE.

Van der Riet, M. 2009. “Participatory Research and the Philosophy of Social Science: Beyond the Moral Imperative.” Qualitative Inquiry 14(4):546–565.

Van Manen, Max. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy . Albany: State University of New York.

Wortham, Stanton. 2001. Narratives in Action: A Strategy for Research and Analysis . New York: Teachers College Press.

Inductive, Deductive, and Abductive Reasoning and Nomothetic Science in General

Aliseda, Atocha. 2003. “Mathematical Reasoning vs. Abductive Reasoning: A Structural Approach.” Synthese 134(1/2):25–44.

Bonk, Thomas. 1997. “Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Discontinuity and the Determination of Theory by Evidence.” Synthese 112(1):53–73. A (natural) scientific discussion of inductive reasoning.

Bonnell, Victoria E. 1980. “The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology.” C omparative Studies in Society and History 22(2):156–173.

Crane, Mark, and Michael C. Newman. 1996. “Scientific Method in Environmental Toxicology.” Environmental Reviews 4(2):112–122.

Huang, Philip C. C., and Yuan Gao. 2015. “Should Social Science and Jurisprudence Imitate Natural Science?” Modern China 41(2):131–167.

Mingers, J. 2012. “Abduction: The Missing Link between Deduction and Induction. A Comment on Ormerod’s ‘Rational Inference: Deductive, Inductive and Probabilistic Thinking.’” Journal of the Operational Research Society 63(6):860–861.

Ormerod, Richard J. 2010. “Rational Inference: Deductive, Inductive and Probabilistic Thinking.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(8):1207–1223.

Perry, Charner P. 1927. “Inductive vs. Deductive Method in Social Science Research.” Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly 8(1):66–74.

Plutynski, Anya. 2011. “Four Problems of Abduction: A Brief History.” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1(2):227–248.

Thompson, Bruce, and Gloria M. Borrello. 1992. “Different Views of Love: Deductive and Inductive Lines of Inquiry.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(5):154–156.

Tracy, Sarah J. 2012. “The Toxic and Mythical Combination of a Deductive Writing Logic for Inductive Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Communication Research 1(1):109–141.

A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest; most universities have an archive of material related to the university’s history, as well as other “special collections” that may be of interest to members of the community.

A person who introduces the researcher to a field site’s culture and population.  Also referred to as guides.  Used in ethnography .

A form of research and a methodological tradition of inquiry in which the researcher uses self-reflection and writing to explore personal experiences and connect this autobiographical story to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.  “Autoethnography is a research method that uses a researcher's personal experience to describe and critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences” ( Adams, Jones, and Ellis 2015 ).

The philosophical framework in which research is conducted; the approach to “research” (what practices this entails, etc.).  Inevitably, one’s epistemological perspective will also guide one’s methodological choices, as in the case of a constructivist who employs a Grounded Theory approach to observations and interviews, or an objectivist who surveys key figures in an organization to find out how that organization is run.  One of the key methodological distinctions in social science research is that between quantitative and qualitative research.

The process of labeling and organizing qualitative data to identify different themes and the relationships between them; a way of simplifying data to allow better management and retrieval of key themes and illustrative passages.  See coding frame and  codebook.

A later stage coding process used in Grounded Theory in which data is reassembled around a category, or axis.

A later stage-coding process used in Grounded Theory in which key words or key phrases capture the emergent theory.

The point at which you can conclude data collection because every person you are interviewing, the interaction you are observing, or content you are analyzing merely confirms what you have already noted.  Achieving saturation is often used as the justification for the final sample size.

A methodological tradition of inquiry that focuses on the meanings held by individuals and/or groups about a particular phenomenon (e.g., a “phenomenology of whiteness” or a “phenomenology of first-generation college students”).  Sometimes this is referred to as understanding “the lived experience” of a particular group or culture.  Interviews form the primary tool of data collection for phenomenological studies.  Derived from the German philosophy of phenomenology (Husserl 1913; 2017).

The number of individuals (or units) included in your sample

A form of reasoning which employs a “top-down” approach to drawing conclusions: it begins with a premise or hypothesis and seeks to verify it (or disconfirm it) with newly collected data.  Inferences are made based on widely accepted facts or premises.  Deduction is idea-first, followed by observations and a conclusion.  This form of reasoning is often used in quantitative research and less often in qualitative research.  Compare to inductive reasoning .  See also abductive reasoning .

A form of reasoning that employs a “bottom-up” approach to drawing conclusions: it begins with the collection of data relevant to a particular question and then seeks to build an argument or theory based on an analysis of that data.  Induction is observation first, followed by an idea that could explain what has been observed.  This form of reasoning is often used in qualitative research and seldom used in qualitative research.  Compare to deductive reasoning .  See also abductive reasoning .

An “interpretivist” form of reasoning in which “most likely” conclusions are drawn, based on inference.  This approach is often used by qualitative researchers who stress the recursive nature of qualitative data analysis.  Compare with deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning .

A form of social science research that generally follows the scientific method as established in the natural sciences.  In contrast to idiographic research , the nomothetic researcher looks for general patterns and “laws” of human behavior and social relationships.  Once discovered, these patterns and laws will be expected to be widely applicable.  Quantitative social science research is nomothetic because it seeks to generalize findings from samples to larger populations.  Most qualitative social science research is also nomothetic, although generalizability is here understood to be theoretical in nature rather than statistical .  Some qualitative researchers, however, espouse the idiographic research paradigm instead.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Qualitative Research Questions: What it is and how to write it

Qualitative research questions are like a compass that points researchers in the right direction to find rich stories, untangle complicated social relationships, and get a clear picture of how people act in subtle ways. Unlike their quantitative counterparts, these questions go beyond numbers and figures to explore the subjective, contextual, and complex parts of the human experience.

It’s well-established that all forms of research come with their own theories and implementation methods. Qualitative research is much the same. Qualitative research is conducted to understand the thought process of both the respondents as well as researchers. It usually is conducted in a natural setup where respondents will be their true selves and would respond transparently. 

Results achieved from this research will not be generalized to the entire population but asked research questions , and their vocabulary gives away the researcher’s motive making it easier for respondents to participate in qualitative market research .

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

Qualitative research survey questions are created to understand a particular topic better or to inspect a new subject to understand the nerve of respondent experiences.

Content Index

What are qualitative research questions?

How to write qualitative research questions, types of qualitative research questions, how to choose qualitative research questions, what should be the process of forming qualitative research questions and questionnaires.

Qualitative research questions are the inquiries that lead to qualitative research studies and investigations. They are meant to help people explore and understand phenomena, experiences, meanings, and views from the participant’s point of view. 

Different from quantitative research questions, which often try to measure and quantify variables, qualitative research questions try to understand the richness and complexity of human experiences and social events.

Most qualitative research questions are open-ended and allow for in-depth study. They want more than simple yes/no answers but instead want people to talk about their thoughts, feelings, views, and experiences. These questions try to find deeper meanings, patterns, and connections in a given situation.

Here are some examples of qualitative study questions in different fields:

• In psychology: How do individuals experience and cope with traumatic events?
• In sociology: What factors influence a student’s decision to pursue higher education?
• In anthropology: How do cultural norms and values shape gender roles in a specific community?
• In education: What are the challenges faced by teachers in implementing project-based learning in the classroom?
• In healthcare: What are the experiences and perspectives of patients undergoing long-term treatment for a chronic illness?

Qualitative research questions should be straightforward, specific, and tailored to the research’s goals. They guide the process of gathering data through interviews, observations, or document analysis and give a method for analyzing and interpreting data.

Writing the right qualitative research questions requires careful thought about the research goals, the event being studied, and the wanted level of understanding. Here are some tips to help you write good qualitative research questions:

Begin with a broad research question

Start by posing an all-encompassing question that probes the subject or phenomenon of interest. Exploring and learning from the answer to this open-ended question should be possible.

Specify the research objectives

Clearly state the objectives and purposes of your research. What do you want your qualitative study to accomplish? What facets or dimensions of the subject do you wish to investigate?

Focus on the phenomenon

Decide on whatever specific subject or phenomenon you want to research. Any pertinent topic, including social behavior, cultural customs, personal experiences, and more, may be used.

Use open-ended and exploratory language

In qualitative research, open-ended questions should be used to enable participants to offer thorough and in-depth responses. Avoid yes/no questions and queries with a one-word answer. Use words like “how,” “what,” “why,” or “describe” instead to compel people to express their thoughts and experiences.

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

Consider the context and participants

Consider your research’s background as well as the qualities of your subjects. Make sure your qualitative methods are specific to the people you will be studying so that they are pertinent and meaningful to them.

Incorporate theory and literature

Your research questions should be based on pertinent theories and available literature. This gives your investigation a theoretical foundation and places your study within the body of knowledge.

Balance breadth and depth

When formulating your research topics, try to strike a balance between depth and breadth. To fully understand the subject, you should investigate it broadly to get a variety of viewpoints and intensively delve into certain areas.

Avoid leading or biased questions

Ensure your questions are neutral and unbiased. Avoid leading participants towards a particular response. Instead, create questions that allow participants to express their thoughts and experiences freely.

Pilot test your questions

Pilot-test your research questions with a small group of people before finalizing them. This will make it easier to spot any possible problems, ambiguities, or places where clarity may be increased.

Revise and refine

Revise and clarify your research questions based on the comments and understandings received from the pilot testing. Aim for consistency, coherence, and congruence with your research goals.

Remember, qualitative market research questions should be flexible and adaptable throughout the research process. They serve as a guide but may evolve as you delve deeper into the data and discover new insights.

LEARN ABOUT: Steps in Qualitative Research

There are several types of qualitative research questions focus that can be used to guide qualitative studies. Here are some common types:

1. Descriptive questions

These questions aim to describe and understand a phenomenon or topic in detail. They focus on providing a comprehensive account of the subject matter. For example:

• What are the experiences of individuals living with chronic pain?
• How do employees perceive the organizational culture in a specific company?

2. Exploratory questions

These questions are used to explore new or under-researched areas. They seek to gain a deeper understanding of a topic or phenomenon. For example:

• What are the factors influencing consumers’ decision-making process when purchasing organic food?
• How do teachers perceive the implementation of project-based learning in the classroom?

3. Experiential questions

These questions focus on understanding individuals’ experiences, perspectives, and subjective meanings related to a particular phenomenon. They aim to capture personal experiences and emotions. For example:

• What are the challenges first-generation college students face during their transition to higher education?
• How do individuals with social anxiety disorder experience social interactions?

4. Comparative questions

These questions involve comparing and contrasting different groups, contexts, or perspectives to identify similarities, differences, or patterns. They explore variations in experiences or phenomena. For example:

• How do parenting practices differ between cultures A and B in terms of child discipline?
• What are the similarities and differences in the coping strategies used by individuals with individuals and depression questionnaire with anxiety disorders?

5. Process-oriented questions

These questions focus on understanding a phenomenon’s processes, mechanisms, or dynamics. They aim to uncover how and why certain outcomes or behaviors occur. For example:

• What are the processes by which teams in a workplace reach a consensus on decision-making?
• How does the negotiation process unfold during conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships?

6. Theoretical questions

These questions seek to generate or refine theory. They explore concepts, relationships, or theoretical frameworks to contribute to the existing body of knowledge. For example:

• How does the concept of “self-efficacy” manifest in the context of entrepreneurship?
• What underlying mechanisms explain the relationship between social support and mental health outcomes?

These are just a few examples of the types of qualitative research questions that can be used. The specific type of question you choose will depend on your research objectives, the phenomenon under investigation, and the depth of understanding you aim to achieve.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Choosing a good qualitative research question involves a thoughtful and systematic approach to ensure they align with the objectives of your study and allows for an in-depth exploration of the topic. Here are some steps to help you choose effective qualitative research questions:

Identify your research objectives

Clearly define the purpose of your study. What do you want to explore or understand? What specific insights or knowledge are you seeking to gain through your market research?

Review existing literature

Conduct a thorough review of relevant literature to identify existing research gaps or areas requiring further exploration. This will help you understand the current state of knowledge and inform the development of your research questions.

Brainstorm potential qualitative research question

Generate a list of potential research questions that address your research objectives. Consider different angles, perspectives, and dimensions of your topic. Creating open-ended questions that allow for in-depth exploration rather than simple yes/no answers is important.

Prioritize and refine the questions

Evaluate the generated questions based on their relevance to your research objectives, feasibility, and potential to yield meaningful insights. Prioritize the questions that are most likely to provide rich and valuable data. Refine and rephrase the questions as needed to ensure clarity and focus.

Consider the research design and methodology

Take into account the specific qualitative research design and methodology you plan to use. Different research approaches, such as ethnography, interviews, focus groups, or case studies, may require different types of research questions. Ensure that your questions align with your chosen methodology and will help you gather the desired data.

Pilot test the questions

Before finalizing your research questions, consider conducting a pilot test with a small group of participants. This will allow you to assess your questions’ clarity, appropriateness, and effectiveness. Make necessary revisions based on the feedback received.

Seek feedback

Share your research questions with colleagues, mentors, or experts in your field for feedback and suggestions. They can provide valuable insights and help you refine your questions further.

Finalize your research questions

Based on the steps above, select a set of research questions that are well-aligned with your research objectives, provide scope for exploration, and are feasible within the resources and time available for your study.

1. Mention the purpose of conducting qualitative research. It can be in the form of either of these sentences:

• This study will be on the topic of ….
• The reason for conducting this research is ….

2. Create qualitative statements with a defined objective that can be easily communicated to the target audience .

Keep these pointers in mind while designing this statement:

• Try and form single-sentence statements. Single statements can be much more effective than elaborate ones as they help in communicating important messages in an impactful manner in a short and succinct sentence.
• Clarify the purpose of conducting qualitative research in clear words so that respondents understand their contribution to this research.
• Mention the main topic of research that would prompt respondents to have a clearer idea about what they’re getting into.
• It’s the words that make all the difference. Use qualitative words that demonstrate the quality or feeling behind your purpose, such as understanding, describing, explore.
• Specify details that you would want to communicate to your respondents.
• Mention the name of the research website.

3. Other than the primary qualitative questions, you must create sub-questions so that the purpose is executed in a better manner.

• The main question might be – “What is the state of illiteracy in your state?”
• You can create sub-questions such as: “How does illiteracy hamper progress in your state?” or “How would you best describe your feelings about illiteracy?”

4. Highlight these questions using ‘qualitative’ words:

• Start the questions with “What” or “How” to make sure the respondents provide details about their feelings.
• Communicate what you’re trying to “understand,” “explore,” or “identify” using this Qualitative research online survey questionnaire.
• Questions such as “What happened” can be asked to develop a description of the topic.
• Questions about “how did respondents interpret the what happened question” can be asked to examine the outcome.
• Understand the entire qualitative research process by asking questions about “What happened to you with time?”

5. Develop a skeleton to design the primary questions and also the sub-questions. For example:

• Primary Qualitative research survey question: “How do you think _______ (the main topic of research) means?” or “Describe _____(the main topic of research) as you’ve experienced.”
• Sub-question for qualitative research: “What _________ (characteristic) does __________ (respondents) interest in as a _________ (main topic of research)?”

LEARN ABOUT: Structured Questionnaire

Qualitative research questions are key to giving research studies depth and breadth. These questions go into the details and complexities of human experiences, perceptions, and behaviors. This helps researchers get a full picture of a certain occurrence. 

Qualitative research questions are meant to explore, describe, and make sense of subjective truths. Most of the time, they are open-ended, so people can say what they think and feel in their own words. 

QuestionPro is an online poll and research platform with several tools and features that can make it easier to make and use qualitative research questions. Its easy-to-use design and variety of question types help researchers collect qualitative data quickly and easily, improving the whole research process.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

SWOT Analysis: What It Is And How To Do It?

Sep 27, 2024

Alchemer vs SurveyMonkey: Which Survey Tool Is Best for You

Sep 26, 2024

SurveySparrow vs SurveyMonkey: Choosing the Right Survey Tool

User Behavior Analytics: What it is, Importance, Uses & Tools

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Seminal Authors
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Locating Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks This link opens in a new window
• Quantitative Research Questions

Qualitative Research Questions

• Sampling Methods
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

What’s in a Qualitative Research Question?

Qualitative research questions are driven by the need for the study. Ideally, research questions are formulated as a result of the problem and purpose, which leads to the identification of the methodology. When a qualitative methodology is chosen, research questions should be exploratory and focused on the actual phenomenon under study.

From the Dissertation Center, Chapter 1: Research Question Overview , there are several considerations when forming a qualitative research question. Qualitative research questions should

Below is an example of a qualitative phenomenological design. Note the use of the term “lived experience” in the central research question. This aligns with phenomenological design.

RQ1: “ What are the lived experiences of followers of mid-level managers in the financial services sector regarding their well-being on the job?”

If the researcher wants to focus on aspects of the theory used to support the study or dive deeper into aspects of the central RQ, sub-questions might be used. The following sub-questions could be formulated to seek further insight:

RQ1a.   “How do followers perceive the quality and adequacy of the leader-follower exchanges between themselves and their novice leaders?”

RQ1b.  “Under what conditions do leader-member exchanges affect a follower’s own level of well-being?”

Qualitative research questions also display the desire to explore or describe phenomena. Qualitative research seeks the lived experience, the personal experiences, the understandings, the meanings, and the stories associated with the concepts present in our studies.

We want to ensure our research questions are answerable and that we are not making assumptions about our sample. View the questions below:

How do healthcare providers perceive income inequality when providing care to poor patients?

In Example A, we see that there is no specificity of location or geographic areas. This could lead to findings that are varied, and the researcher may not find a clear pattern. Additionally, the question implies the focus is on “income inequality” when the actual focus is on the provision of care. The term “poor patients” can also be offensive, and most providers will not want to seem insensitive and may perceive income inequality as a challenge (of course!).

How do primary care nurses in outreach clinics describe providing quality care to residents of low-income urban neighborhoods?

In Example B, we see that there is greater specificity in the type of care provider. There is also a shift in language so that the focus is on how the individuals describe what they think about, experience, and navigate providing quality care.

Other Qualitative Research Question Examples

Vague : What are the strategies used by healthcare personnel to assist injured patients?

Try this : What is the experience of emergency room personnel in treating patients with a self-inflicted household injury?

The first question is general and vague. While in the same topic area, the second question is more precise and gives the reader a specific target population and a focus on the phenomenon they would have experienced. This question could be in line with a phenomenological study as we are seeking their experience or a case study as the ER personnel are a bounded entity.

Unclear : How do students experience progressing to college?

Try this : How do first-generation community members describe the aspects of their culture that promote aspiration to postsecondary education?

The first question does not have a focus on what progress is or what students are the focus. The second question provides a specific target population and provides the description to be provided by the participants. This question could be in line with a descriptive study.

• << Previous: Quantitative Research Questions
• Next: Sampling Methods >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2024 11:11 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

Qualitative Research Design: Start

Qualitative Research Design

What is Qualitative research design?

Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervening or introducing treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. It answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much . It could be structured as a stand-alone study, purely relying on qualitative data or it could be part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research. Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research, which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis. Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. For instance, qualitative research can help expand and deepen understanding of data or results obtained from quantitative analysis. For example, say a quantitative analysis has determined that there is a correlation between length of stay and level of patient satisfaction, but why does this correlation exist? This dual-focus scenario shows one way in which qualitative and quantitative research could be integrated together.

Research Paradigms 

• Positivist versus Post-Positivist
• Social Constructivist (this paradigm/ideology mostly birth qualitative studies)

Events Relating to the Qualitative Research and Community Engagement Workshops @ CMU Libraries

CMU Libraries is committed to helping members of our community become data experts. To that end, CMU is offering public facing workshops that discuss Qualitative Research, Coding, and Community Engagement best practices.

The following workshops are a part of a broader series on using data. Please follow the links to register for the events. 

Qualitative Coding

Using Community Data to improve Outcome (Grant Writing)

Survey Design  

Upcoming Event: March 21st, 2024 (12:00pm -1:00 pm)

Community Engagement and Collaboration Event 

Join us for an event to improve, build on and expand the connections between Carnegie Mellon University resources and the Pittsburgh community. CMU resources such as the Libraries and Sustainability Initiative can be leveraged by users not affiliated with the university, but barriers can prevent them from fully engaging.

The conversation features representatives from CMU departments and local organizations about the community engagement efforts currently underway at CMU and opportunities to improve upon them. Speakers will highlight current and ongoing projects and share resources to support future collaboration.

Event Moderators:

Taiwo Lasisi, CLIR Postdoctoral Fellow in Community Data Literacy,  Carnegie Mellon University Libraries

Emma Slayton, Data Curation, Visualization, & GIS Specialist,  Carnegie Mellon University Libraries

Nicky Agate , Associate Dean for Academic Engagement, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries

Chelsea Cohen , The University’s Executive fellow for community engagement, Carnegie Mellon University

Sarah Ceurvorst , Academic Pathways Manager, Program Director, LEAP (Leadership, Excellence, Access, Persistence) Carnegie Mellon University

Julia Poeppibg , Associate Director of Partnership Development, Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University 

Scott Wolovich , Director of New Sun Rising, Pittsburgh 

Additional workshops and events will be forthcoming. Watch this space for updates. 

Workshop Organizer

Qualitative Research Methods

What are Qualitative Research methods?

Qualitative research adopts numerous methods or techniques including interviews, focus groups, and observation. Interviews may be unstructured, with open-ended questions on a topic and the interviewer adapts to the responses. Structured interviews have a predetermined number of questions that every participant is asked. It is usually one-on-one and is appropriate for sensitive topics or topics needing an in-depth exploration. Focus groups are often held with 8-12 target participants and are used when group dynamics and collective views on a topic are desired. Researchers can be participant observers to share the experiences of the subject or non-participant or detached observers.

What constitutes a good research question? Does the question drive research design choices?

According to Doody and Bailey (2014);

 We can only develop a good research question by consulting relevant literature, colleagues, and supervisors experienced in the area of research. (inductive interactions).

Helps to have a directed research aim and objective.

Researchers should not be “ research trendy” and have enough evidence. This is why research objectives are important. It helps to take time, and resources into consideration.

Research questions can be developed from theoretical knowledge, previous research or experience, or a practical need at work (Parahoo 2014). They have numerous roles, such as identifying the importance of the research and providing clarity of purpose for the research, in terms of what the research intends to achieve in the end.

Qualitative Research Questions

What constitutes a good Qualitative research question?

A good qualitative question answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much. It could be structured as a stand-alone study, purely relying on qualitative data or it could be part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions and behavior.

Examples of good Qualitative Research Questions:

What are people's thoughts on the new library? 

How does it feel to be a first-generation student attending college?

Difference example (between Qualitative and Quantitative research questions):

How many college students signed up for the new semester? (Quan) 

How do college students feel about the new semester? What are their experiences so far? (Qual)

• Qualitative Research Design Workshop Powerpoint

Foley G, Timonen V. Using Grounded Theory Method to Capture and Analyze Health Care Experiences. Health Serv Res. 2015 Aug;50(4):1195-210. [ PMC free article: PMC4545354 ] [ PubMed: 25523315 ]

Devers KJ. How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1153-88. [ PMC free article: PMC1089058 ] [ PubMed: 10591278 ]

Huston P, Rowan M. Qualitative studies. Their role in medical research. Can Fam Physician. 1998 Nov;44:2453-8. [ PMC free article: PMC2277956 ] [ PubMed: 9839063 ]

Corner EJ, Murray EJ, Brett SJ. Qualitative, grounded theory exploration of patients' experience of early mobilisation, rehabilitation and recovery after critical illness. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 24;9(2):e026348. [ PMC free article: PMC6443050 ] [ PubMed: 30804034 ]

Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):9-18. [ PMC free article: PMC5774281 ] [ PubMed: 29199486 ]

Houghton C, Murphy K, Meehan B, Thomas J, Brooker D, Casey D. From screening to synthesis: using nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2017 Mar;26(5-6):873-881. [ PubMed: 27324875 ]

Soratto J, Pires DEP, Friese S. Thematic content analysis using ATLAS.ti software: Potentialities for researchs in health. Rev Bras Enferm. 2020;73(3):e20190250. [ PubMed: 32321144 ]

Zamawe FC. The Implication of Using NVivo Software in Qualitative Data Analysis: Evidence-Based Reflections. Malawi Med J. 2015 Mar;27(1):13-5. [ PMC free article: PMC4478399 ] [ PubMed: 26137192 ]

Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):120-124. [ PMC free article: PMC8816392 ] [ PubMed: 29202616 ]

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 1-440.

O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51. [ PubMed: 24979285 ]

Palermo C, King O, Brock T, Brown T, Crampton P, Hall H, Macaulay J, Morphet J, Mundy M, Oliaro L, Paynter S, Williams B, Wright C, E Rees C. Setting priorities for health education research: A mixed methods study. Med Teach. 2019 Sep;41(9):1029-1038. [ PubMed: 31141390 ]

• Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 4:25 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=1346006

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

83 Qualitative Research Questions & Examples

Free Website Traffic Checker

Discover your competitors' strengths and leverage them to achieve your own success

Qualitative research questions help you understand consumer sentiment. They’re strategically designed to show organizations how and why people feel the way they do about a brand, product, or service. It looks beyond the numbers and is one of the most telling types of market research a company can do.

The UK Data Service describes this perfectly, saying, “The value of qualitative research is that it gives a voice to the lived experience .”

Read on to see seven use cases and 83 qualitative research questions, with the added bonus of examples that show how to get similar insights faster with Similarweb Research Intelligence.

What is a qualitative research question?

A qualitative research question explores a topic in-depth, aiming to better understand the subject through interviews, observations, and other non-numerical data. Qualitative research questions are open-ended, helping to uncover a target audience’s opinions, beliefs, and motivations.

How to choose qualitative research questions?

Choosing the right qualitative research questions can be incremental to the success of your research and the findings you uncover. Here’s my six-step process for choosing the best qualitative research questions.

• Start by understanding the purpose of your research. What do you want to learn? What outcome are you hoping to achieve?
• Consider who you are researching. What are their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs? How can you best capture these in your research questions ?
• Keep your questions open-ended . Qualitative research questions should not be too narrow or too broad. Aim to ask specific questions to provide meaningful answers but broad enough to allow for exploration.
• Balance your research questions. You don’t want all of your questions to be the same type. Aim to mix up your questions to get a variety of answers.
• Ensure your research questions are ethical and free from bias. Always have a second (and third) person check for unconscious bias.
• Consider the language you use. Your questions should be written in a way that is clear and easy to understand. Avoid using jargon , acronyms, or overly technical language.

Types of qualitative research questions

For a question to be considered qualitative, it usually needs to be open-ended. However, as I’ll explain, there can sometimes be a slight cross-over between quantitative and qualitative research questions.

Open-ended questions

These allow for a wide range of responses and can be formatted with multiple-choice answers or a free-text box to collect additional details. The next two types of qualitative questions are considered open questions, but each has its own style and purpose.

• Probing questions are used to delve deeper into a respondent’s thoughts, such as “Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?”
• Comparative questions ask people to compare two or more items, such as “Which product do you prefer and why?” These qualitative questions are highly useful for understanding brand awareness , competitive analysis , and more.

Closed-ended questions

These ask respondents to choose from a predetermined set of responses, such as “On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the new product?” While they’re traditionally quantitative, adding a free text box that asks for extra comments into why a specific rating was chosen will provide qualitative insights alongside their respective quantitative research question responses.

• Ranking questions get people to rank items in order of preference, such as “Please rank these products in terms of quality.” They’re advantageous in many scenarios, like product development, competitive analysis, and brand awareness.
• Likert scale questions ask people to rate items on a scale, such as “On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the new product?” Ideal for placement on websites and emails to gather quick, snappy feedback.

Qualitative research question examples

There are many applications of qualitative research and lots of ways you can put your findings to work for the success of your business. Here’s a summary of the most common use cases for qualitative questions and examples to ask.

Qualitative questions for identifying customer needs and motivations

These types of questions help you find out why customers choose products or services and what they are looking for when making a purchase.

• What factors do you consider when deciding to buy a product?
• What would make you choose one product or service over another?
• What are the most important elements of a product that you would buy?
• What features do you look for when purchasing a product?
• What qualities do you look for in a company’s products?
• Do you prefer localized or global brands when making a purchase?
• How do you determine the value of a product?
• What do you think is the most important factor when choosing a product?
• How do you decide if a product or service is worth the money?
• Do you have any specific expectations when purchasing a product?
• Do you prefer to purchase products or services online or in person?
• What kind of customer service do you expect when buying a product?
• How do you decide when it is time to switch to a different product?
• Where do you research products before you decide to buy?
• What do you think is the most important customer value when making a purchase?

Qualitative research questions to enhance customer experience

Use these questions to reveal insights into how customers interact with a company’s products or services and how those experiences can be improved.

• What aspects of our product or service do customers find most valuable?
• How do customers perceive our customer service?
• What factors are most important to customers when purchasing?
• What do customers think of our brand?
• What do customers think of our current marketing efforts?
• How do customers feel about the features and benefits of our product?
• How do customers feel about the price of our product or service?
• How could we improve the customer experience?
• What do customers think of our website or app?
• What do customers think of our customer support?
• What could we do to make our product or service easier to use?
• What do customers think of our competitors?
• What is your preferred way to access our site?
• How do customers feel about our delivery/shipping times?
• What do customers think of our loyalty programs?

Qualitative research question example for customer experience

• ‍♀️ Question: What is your preferred way to access our site?
• Insight sought: How mobile-dominant are consumers? Should you invest more in mobile optimization or mobile marketing?
• Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: While using this type of question is ideal if you have a large database to survey when placed on a site or sent to a limited customer list, it only gives you a point-in-time perspective from a limited group of people.
• A new approach: You can get better, broader insights quicker with Similarweb Digital Research Intelligence. To fully inform your research, you need to know preferences at the industry or market level.
• ⏰ Time to insight: 30 seconds
• ✅ How it’s done: Similarweb offers multiple ways to answer this question without going through a lengthy qualitative research process. 

First, I’m going to do a website market analysis of the banking credit and lending market in the finance sector to get a clearer picture of industry benchmarks.

Here, I can view device preferences across any industry or market instantly. It shows me the device distribution for any country across any period. This clearly answers the question of how mobile dominate my target audience is , with 59.79% opting to access site via a desktop vs. 40.21% via mobile

I then use the trends section to show me the exact split between mobile and web traffic for each key player in my space. Let’s say I’m about to embark on a competitive campaign that targets customers of Chase and Bank of America ; I can see both their audiences are highly desktop dominant compared with others in their space .

Qualitative question examples for developing new products or services

Research questions like this can help you understand customer pain points and give you insights to develop products that meet those needs.

• What is the primary reason you would choose to purchase a product from our company?
• How do you currently use products or services that are similar to ours?
• Is there anything that could be improved with products currently on the market?
• What features would you like to see added to our products?
• How do you prefer to contact a customer service team?
• What do you think sets our company apart from our competitors?
• What other product or service offerings would like to see us offer?
• What type of information would help you make decisions about buying a product?
• What type of advertising methods are most effective in getting your attention?
• What is the biggest deterrent to purchasing products from us?

Qualitative research question example for service development

• ‍♀️ Question: What type of advertising methods are most effective in getting your attention?
• Insight sought: The marketing channels and/or content that performs best with a target audience .
• Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: When using qualitative research surveys to answer questions like this, the sample size is limited, and bias could be at play.
• A better approach: The most authentic insights come from viewing real actions and results that take place in the digital world. No questions or answers are needed to uncover this intel, and the information you seek is readily available in less than a minute.
• ⏰ Time to insight: 5 minutes
• ✅ How it’s done: There are a few ways to approach this. You can either take an industry-wide perspective or hone in on specific competitors to unpack their individual successes. Here, I’ll quickly show a snapshot with a whole market perspective.

Using the market analysis element of Similarweb Digital Intelligence, I select my industry or market, which I’ve kept as banking and credit. A quick click into marketing channels shows me which channels drive the highest traffic in my market. Taking direct traffic out of the equation, for now, I can see that referrals and organic traffic are the two highest-performing channels in this market.

Similarweb allows me to view the specific referral partners and pages across these channels. 

Looking closely at referrals in this market, I’ve chosen chase.com and its five closest rivals . I select referrals in the channel traffic element of marketing channels. I see that Capital One is a clear winner, gaining almost 25 million visits due to referral partnerships.

Next, I get to see exactly who is referring traffic to Capital One and the total traffic share for each referrer. I can see the growth as a percentage and how that has changed, along with an engagement score that rates the average engagement level of that audience segment. This is particularly useful when deciding on which new referral partnerships to pursue.  

Once I’ve identified the channels and campaigns that yield the best results, I can then use Similarweb to dive into the various ad creatives and content that have the greatest impact.

These ads are just a few of those listed in the creatives section from my competitive website analysis of Capital One. You can filter this list by the specific campaign, publishers, and ad networks to view those that matter to you most. You can also discover video ad creatives in the same place too.

In just five minutes ⏰ 

• I’ve captured audience loyalty statistics across my market
• Spotted the most competitive players
• Identified the marketing channels my audience is most responsive to
• I know which content and campaigns are driving the highest traffic volume
• I’ve created a target list for new referral partners and have been able to prioritize this based on results and engagement figures from my rivals
• I can see the types of creatives that my target audience is responding to, giving me ideas for ways to generate effective copy for future campaigns

Qualitative questions to determine pricing strategies

Companies need to make sure pricing stays relevant and competitive. Use these questions to determine customer perceptions on pricing and develop pricing strategies to maximize profits and reduce churn.

• How do you feel about our pricing structure?
• How does our pricing compare to other similar products?
• What value do you feel you get from our pricing?
• How could we make our pricing more attractive?
• What would be an ideal price for our product?
• Which features of our product that you would like to see priced differently?
• What discounts or deals would you like to see us offer?
• How do you feel about the amount you have to pay for our product?

Get Faster Answers to Qualitative Research Questions with Similarweb Today

Qualitative research question example for determining pricing strategies

• ‍♀️ Question: What discounts or deals would you like to see us offer?
• Insight sought: The promotions or campaigns that resonate with your target audience.
• Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: Consumers don’t always recall the types of ads or campaigns they respond to. Over time, their needs and habits change. Your sample size is limited to those you ask, leaving a huge pool of unknowns at play.
• A better approach: While qualitative insights are good to know, you get the most accurate picture of the highest-performing promotion and campaigns by looking at data collected directly from the web. These analytics are real-world, real-time, and based on the collective actions of many, instead of the limited survey group you approach. By getting a complete picture across an entire market, your decisions are better informed and more aligned with current market trends and behaviors.
• ✅ How it’s done: Similarweb’s Popular Pages feature shows the content, products, campaigns, and pages with the highest growth for any website. So, if you’re trying to unpack the successes of others in your space and find out what content resonates with a target audience, there’s a far quicker way to get answers to these questions with Similarweb.

Here, I’m using Capital One as an example site. I can see trending pages on their site showing the largest increase in page views. Other filters include campaign, best-performing, and new–each of which shows you page URLs, share of traffic, and growth as a percentage. This page is particularly useful for staying on top of trending topics , campaigns, and new content being pushed out in a market by key competitors.

Qualitative research questions for product development teams

It’s vital to stay in touch with changing consumer needs. These questions can also be used for new product or service development, but this time, it’s from the perspective of a product manager or development team. 

• What are customers’ primary needs and wants for this product?
• What do customers think of our current product offerings?
• What is the most important feature or benefit of our product?
• How can we improve our product to meet customers’ needs better?
• What do customers like or dislike about our competitors’ products?
• What do customers look for when deciding between our product and a competitor’s?
• How have customer needs and wants for this product changed over time?
• What motivates customers to purchase this product?
• What is the most important thing customers want from this product?
• What features or benefits are most important when selecting a product?
• What do customers perceive to be our product’s pros and cons?
• What would make customers switch from a competitor’s product to ours?
• How do customers perceive our product in comparison to similar products?
• What do customers think of our pricing and value proposition?
• What do customers think of our product’s design, usability, and aesthetics?

Qualitative questions examples to understand customer segments

Market segmentation seeks to create groups of consumers with shared characteristics. Use these questions to learn more about different customer segments and how to target them with tailored messaging.

• What motivates customers to make a purchase?
• How do customers perceive our brand in comparison to our competitors?
• How do customers feel about our product quality?
• How do customers define quality in our products?
• What factors influence customers’ purchasing decisions ?
• What are the most important aspects of customer service?
• What do customers think of our customer service?
• What do customers think of our pricing?
• How do customers rate our product offerings?
• How do customers prefer to make purchases (online, in-store, etc.)?

Qualitative research question example for understanding customer segments

• ‍♀️ Question: Which social media channels are you most active on?
• Insight sought: Formulate a social media strategy . Specifically, the social media channels most likely to succeed with a target audience.
• Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: Qualitative research question responses are limited to those you ask, giving you a limited sample size. Questions like this are usually at risk of some bias, and this may not be reflective of real-world actions.
• A better approach: Get a complete picture of social media preferences for an entire market or specific audience belonging to rival firms. Insights are available in real-time, and are based on the actions of many, not a select group of participants. Data is readily available, easy to understand, and expandable at a moment’s notice.
• ✅ How it’s done: Using Similarweb’s website analysis feature, you can get a clear breakdown of social media stats for your audience using the marketing channels element. It shows the percentage of visits from each channel to your site, respective growth, and specific referral pages by each platform. All data is expandable, meaning you can select any platform, period, and region to drill down and get more accurate intel, instantly.

This example shows me Bank of America’s social media distribution, with YouTube , Linkedin , and Facebook taking the top three spots, and accounting for almost 80% of traffic being driven from social media.

When doing any type of market research, it’s important to benchmark performance against industry averages and perform a social media competitive analysis to verify rival performance across the same channels.

Qualitative questions to inform competitive analysis

Organizations must assess market sentiment toward other players to compete and beat rival firms. Whether you want to increase market share , challenge industry leaders , or reduce churn, understanding how people view you vs. the competition is key.

• What is the overall perception of our competitors’ product offerings in the market?
• What attributes do our competitors prioritize in their customer experience?
• What strategies do our competitors use to differentiate their products from ours?
• How do our competitors position their products in relation to ours?
• How do our competitors’ pricing models compare to ours?
• What do consumers think of our competitors’ product quality?
• What do consumers think of our competitors’ customer service?
• What are the key drivers of purchase decisions in our market?
• What is the impact of our competitors’ marketing campaigns on our market share ? 10. How do our competitors leverage social media to promote their products?

Qualitative research question example for competitive analysis

• ‍♀️ Question: What other companies do you shop with for x?
• Insight sought: W ho are your competitors? Which of your rival’s sites do your customers visit? How loyal are consumers in your market?
• Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods:  Sample size is limited, and customers could be unwilling to reveal which competitors they shop with, or how often they around. Where finances are involved, people can act with reluctance or bias, and be unwilling to reveal other suppliers they do business with.
• A better approach: Get a complete picture of your audience’s loyalty, see who else they shop with, and how many other sites they visit in your competitive group. Find out the size of the untapped opportunity and which players are doing a better job at attracting unique visitors – without having to ask people to reveal their preferences.
• ✅ How it’s done: Similarweb website analysis shows you the competitive sites your audience visits, giving you access to data that shows cross-visitation habits, audience loyalty, and untapped potential in a matter of minutes.

Using the audience interests element of Similarweb website analysis, you can view the cross-browsing behaviors of a website’s audience instantly. You can see a matrix that shows the percentage of visitors on a target site and any rival site they may have visited.

With the Similarweb audience overlap feature, view the cross-visitation habits of an audience across specific websites. In this example, I chose chase.com and its four closest competitors to review. For each intersection, you see the number of unique visitors and the overall proportion of each site’s audience it represents. It also shows the volume of unreached potential visitors.

Here, you can see a direct comparison of the audience loyalty represented in a bar graph. It shows a breakdown of each site’s audience based on how many other sites they have visited. Those sites with the highest loyalty show fewer additional sites visited.

From the perspective of chase.com, I can see 47% of their visitors do not visit rival sites. 33% of their audience visited 1 or more sites in this group, 14% visited 2 or more sites, 4% visited 3 or more sites, and just 0.8% viewed all sites in this comparison. 

How to answer qualitative research questions with Similarweb

Similarweb Research Intelligence drastically improves market research efficiency and time to insight. Both of these can impact the bottom line and the pace at which organizations can adapt and flex when markets shift, and rivals change tactics.

Outdated practices, while still useful, take time . And with a quicker, more efficient way to garner similar insights, opting for the fast lane puts you at a competitive advantage.

With a birds-eye view of the actions and behaviors of companies and consumers across a market , you can answer certain research questions without the need to plan, do, and review extensive qualitative market research .

Wrapping up

Qualitative research methods have been around for centuries. From designing the questions to finding the best distribution channels, collecting and analyzing findings takes time to get the insights you need. Similarweb Digital Research Intelligence drastically improves efficiency and time to insight. Both of which impact the bottom line and the pace at which organizations can adapt and flex when markets shift.

Similarweb’s suite of digital intelligence solutions offers unbiased, accurate, honest insights you can trust for analyzing any industry, market, or audience.

• Methodologies used for data collection are robust, transparent, and trustworthy.
• Clear presentation of data via an easy-to-use, intuitive platform.
• It updates dynamically–giving you the freshest data about an industry or market.
• Data is available via an API – so you can plug into platforms like Tableau or PowerBI to streamline your analyses.
• Filter and refine results according to your needs.

Are quantitative or qualitative research questions best?

Both have their place and purpose in market research. Qualitative research questions seek to provide details, whereas quantitative market research gives you numerical statistics that are easier and quicker to analyze. You get more flexibility with qualitative questions, and they’re non-directional.

What are the advantages of qualitative research?

Qualitative research is advantageous because it allows researchers to better understand their subject matter by exploring people’s attitudes, behaviors, and motivations in a particular context. It also allows researchers to uncover new insights that may not have been discovered with quantitative research methods.

What are some of the challenges of qualitative research?

Qualitative research can be time-consuming and costly, typically involving in-depth interviews and focus groups. Additionally, there are challenges associated with the reliability and validity of the collected data, as there is no universal standard for interpreting the results.

by Liz March

Digital Research Specialist

Liz March has 15 years of experience in content creation. She enjoys the outdoors, F1, and reading, and is pursuing a BSc in Environmental Science.

Related Posts

Market Opportunities: How to Identify and Analyze Them

Competitive Benchmarking: Crack the Code to Your Competitors’ Success

Importance of Market Research: 9 Reasons Why It’s Crucial for Your Business

Audience Segmentation: Definition, Importance & Types

Geographic Segmentation: Definition, Pros & Cons, Examples, and More

Demographic Segmentation: The Key To Transforming Your Marketing Strategy

Wondering what similarweb can do for your business.

Give it a try or talk to our insights team — don’t worry, it’s free!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik aspers.

1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

2 Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

3 Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Biographies

is professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, Uppsala University and Universität St. Gallen. His main focus is economic sociology, and in particular, markets. He has published numerous articles and books, including Orderly Fashion (Princeton University Press 2010), Markets (Polity Press 2011) and Re-Imagining Economic Sociology (edited with N. Dodd, Oxford University Press 2015). His book Ethnographic Methods (in Swedish) has already gone through several editions.

is associate professor of sociology at the Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger. His research has been published in journals such as Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Theory, Teaching Sociology, and Music and Arts in Action. As an ethnographer he is working on a book on he social world of big-wave surfing.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .

Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .

• Åkerström M. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):10–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Alvesson M, Kärreman D. Qualitative research and theory development . Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
• Atkinson P. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (3):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Social Problems. 1966; 14 (3):239–247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Sociological work. Method and substance. New Brunswick: Transaction Books; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. The epistemology of qualitative research. In: Richard J, Anne C, Shweder RA, editors. Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker H, Geer B, Hughes E, Strauss A. Boys in White, student culture in medical school. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berezin M. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):141–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
• Biernacki R. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady H, Collier D, Seawright J. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In: Henry B, David C, editors. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 2004. pp. 3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown AP. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research. 2010; 10 (2):229–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
• Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidsson D. The myth of the subjective. In: Davidsson D, editor. Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. pp. 39–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2003. pp. 1–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2005. pp. 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, editor. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esterberg KG. Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
• Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
• Fine GA, Hancock BH. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research. 2017; 17 (2):260–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine GA, Hallett T. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. 2014; 3 (2):188–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information. 2002; 41 (1):5–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. 5. London: Edward Arnold; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society. 2010; 39 (6):593–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology. 2016; 19 (1):137–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
• Gans H. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1999; 28 (5):540–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert N. Researching social life. 3. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaeser A. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 :207–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
• Goertz G, Mahoney J. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goffman E. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1989; 18 (2):123–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin J, Horowitz R. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2002; 25 (1):33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
• Hammersley M. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2007; 30 (3):287–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Hammersley M. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education. 2018; 13 (1):1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography . Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Hempel CG. Philosophy of the natural sciences. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood JC. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology. 2006; 34 (3):207–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• James W. Pragmatism. New York: Meredian Books; 1907. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jovanović G. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences. 2011; 24 (2):1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalof L, Dan A, Dietz T. Essentials of social research. London: Open University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research. 2015; 44 (1):108–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• King G, Keohane RO, Sidney S, Verba S. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. Designing social inquiry. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In: Lamont M, White P, editors. Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2004. pp. 91–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M, Swidler A. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):153–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarsfeld P, Barton A. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In: Kendall P, editor. The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld. New York: Columbia University Press; 1982. pp. 239–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; 10.1177/0049124114554458.
• Lofland J, Lofland L. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofland J, Snow DA, Anderson L, Lofland LH. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 4. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Long AF, Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2004; 7 (2):181–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg G. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1951. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge; 1922. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manicas P. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchel C, Owens S. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology. 2007; 10 (4):301–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre LJ. Need to know. Social science research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton RK, Barber E. The travels and adventures of serendipity . A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannay D, Morgan M. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘ Qualitative Research. 2015; 15 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman LW. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin CC. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
• Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
• Schütz A. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seiffert H. Einführung in die Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Franke; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. 2. London: SAGE Publications; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):48–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small ML. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography. 2009; 10 (1):5–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
• Snow DA, Anderson L. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow DA, Morrill C. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1995; 24 (3):341–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. 14. Chicago: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
• Swedberg R. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February. 1990; 3 (1):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmermans S, Tavory I. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (3):167–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trier-Bieniek A. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (6):630–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner J. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information. 2000; 39 (1):99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, do participants lie imposter participants in online qualitative research.

Qualitative Research Journal

ISSN : 1443-9883

Article publication date: 30 September 2024

The wide adoption of online methodologies has enabled methodological innovations in online qualitative research. However, it also increases the risk of imposter participants who may falsify or fabricate their identities, particularly in studies that offer incentives/compensation. Imposter participants pose a significant threat to data and research integrity. This paper draws on the author’s experience of making methodological adjustments after encountering imposter participants in an online qualitative study to highlight the significance of taking proactive actions throughout online qualitative studies to address this concern.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper provides a review of how qualitative scholars approach this issue in online participant recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Then, the author shares methodological changes made for ongoing recruitment and data collection, as well as handling data collected from imposter participants.

Significant differences exist between verified participants and the incidences of imposter participants. Strategies in participant eligibility check, interview and member checking can be effective ways to address imposter participants throughout research projects.

Originality/value

The discussion on this concern is scant in the qualitative research community and so is the discussion of methodological and ethical approaches to address this issue. This paper underscores the importance for researchers to be aware of the risk of imposter participants and offer methodological considerations across stages in online qualitative studies for ethical and proactive methodological actions.

• Imposter participants
• Online qualitative research
• Participant recruitment
• Data collection
• Data analysis

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the thoughtful and helpful feedback provided by Dr Melisa Cahnmann-Taylor, Shuang Fu, and anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this paper.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Wang, Y. (2024), "Do participants lie? Imposter participants in online qualitative research", Qualitative Research Journal , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-06-2024-0130

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Open access
• Published: 27 September 2024

Patients’ reasons for consulting a general practitioner at the time of having dental problems: a qualitative study

• Raziyehsadat Rezvaninejad 1 ,
• Maryam Alsadat Hashemipour 2 , 3 ,
• Mina Mirzaei 2 , 3 &
• Haleh Rajaeinia 4  

BMC Oral Health volume  24 , Article number:  1130 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Introduction

Many patients consult general practitioners instead of dentists for their oral and dental problems every year. This study aims to find the reasons why patients consult general practitioners when they have dental problems.

The sample consisted of patients visiting dentists and general practitioners in Kerman, Iran. A thematic interview guide, semi-structured questions, and a mind map that allowed for structured and open-ended questions were prepared and used for the interviews. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim by a final-year student. Data collection, transcription, and analysis were conducted simultaneously to allow for new topics to be raised and theoretical saturation to be reached. When researchers determined that sufficient information was available for analysis and understanding of patient opinions and beliefs, the interview process was stopped. As all audio conversations were recorded with the participant’s permission, no note-taking was done during the interviews, which allowed for greater focus on the participants’ conversation. The obtained data was analyzed using the content analysis.

A total of 52 patients were included in this study. The codes related to patients participating in this research, along with the number of respondent groups related to each code were as follows: patient’s perceptions of general practitioner(GP) and dental practitioner’s scope of work [ 21 ], flawed dental system (34), dental anxiety [ 28 ], financial considerations [ 25 ], and more accessibility to GPs (31). Dental abscesses and dental pain were reported as the most common reasons for consulting GPs.

Most participants agreed that dental problems are more effectively treated by dentists. Reasons for visiting a general practitioner included lack of a specific dentist, dissatisfaction with dental treatments, lack of a dentist nearby, absence of emergency dental care, and familiarity with a physician. The most common reasons for visits were toothache and dental abscesses. Patients also sought treatment for TMJ pain, referred nerve pain, wisdom tooth pain, numbness and tingling in the jaw, gum inflammation, oral lesions, and ulcers. Furthermore, other factors such as opening hours, appointment systems and waiting time can also affect patient’s consult behaviors regarding dental problems.

Peer Review reports

Although a large number of patients consult a dentist when they have dental problems, other patients consult a general practitioner. Nearly 380,000 visits are made to general practitioners per year due to dental problems in the United Kingdom [ 1 ]. The overall rate of consultations related to dental issues with general practitioners in the UK has decreased between 2008 and 2013. However, reported statistics vary widely. For example, in some practices, as many as 8.29 dental consultations per 1,000 patients have been reported [ 2 , 3 ].

This may be due to issues with access to dental services, the patient’s perception of the scope of practice of physicians and dentists, poorly differentiated pain, the need for antibiotics, or financial concerns about the cost of dental treatment [ 2 , 3 ]. Evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute dental conditions recommend that patients (except those with critical conditions) be referred to dentists who have the skills and resources necessary to stabilize conditions and prevent the worsening of patient status. In many cases, acute dental conditions require dental surgical treatments such as extractions or root canal treatments. It seems unlikely that general practitioners have the necessary skills or tools to diagnose and treat such cases, which can justify the high rate of prescribing antibiotics for dental problems. Since in most cases prescribing antibiotics for acute dental problems rarely leads to a definitive cure, the use of antibiotics in these consultations has become a concern. There are also direct, indirect, and opportunity costs associated with dental consultations those are imposed on general practitioners [ 4 ].

Most dental problems cannot be managed entirely by physicians [ 4 ], but unfortunately, general practitioners who lack the knowledge, specialized skills, and necessary facilities to perform appropriate treatment still visit such patients. Systemic antibiotic prescribing for those consulting general practitioners regarding dental problems is more likely than those who visit dentists. Antibiotics have no clinical benefit for many acute dental diseases [ 5 ], and their indiscriminate use could lead to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains and harmful side effects [ 6 ].

The use of general practitioners for dental problems is usually ineffective and insufficient, making it a waste of resources. Patients rarely receive the best care for their dental condition, which can lead to concern about the worsening of their condition due to untreated dental problems and increase the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains from improper antibiotic prescribing. The reasons for patients consulting with general practitioners regarding dental problems are not only influenced by the symptoms of the disease and the difference between dentist and general practitioner consultations in terms of access and scheduling convenience but also by background factors such as previous experiences with dental visits and patients’ perceptions of the scope of practice of physicians [ 1 ].

Evidence has been discussed for decades on the relationship between oral and dental health and systemic diseases, especially the interactions between periodontitis or remaining teeth and chronic and non-communicable diseases (diabetes, coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, and dementia) [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Collaborating between general practitioners and dentists is crucial for providing high-quality health services to patients. Recently, it was reported that the convenience of scheduling a visit and its availability can be effective in choosing a general practitioner for dental symptoms. In a study of patients referred to the maxillofacial surgery department in the UK, 26% of patients referred by their treating physician believed that the cost of visiting a dentist instead of a physician was effective in choosing a treating physician for dental and jaw problems. Although the findings of this study may not be generalized to a larger population of patients with dental problems who visit general practitioners, only a small proportion of these patients are referred to another physician [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Therefore, this study aims to find out the reasons why patients consult with a general practitioner for dental or gum problems.

The sample population was comprised of patients who went to dentists and general practitioners in Kerman. In this comprehensive study, both individual and group interviews were conducted with several patients in Kerman. Focus groups and individual interviews are both excellent means of collecting data and information to support monitoring and evaluation work. Both collect qualitative information directly from participants and should provide detailed and rich data. A Focus Group is a structured discussion group, which aims to gather critical information about beneficiaries. A focus group is a small, but representative, sample of people who are asked about their opinions on a particular topic. The responses are then used to generate insights and understanding about that topic. The Focus groups can be an effective way to gather information because they provide a forum for open discussion and allow for the exploration of different viewpoints. They also offer the opportunity to build rapport and relationships with participants [ 11 , 12 ].

Before the interviews, verbal consent was obtained from the patients, and those who were willing to participate were included in the study. A purposive sample with maximum diversity was used to ensure diversity in occupation, gender, and age. All participants volunteered and participated without compensation, and were informed of their right to withdraw from the study without giving a reason until the publication of the study.

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in locations requested by the patients. The interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer (a final-year student who had been trained by the oral medicine professor). A thematic interview guide, semi-structured questions, and a mind map that allowed for structured and open-ended questions were prepared and used for the interviews [ 11 , 12 ].

All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim by a final-year student (female). After each interview, field notes were reviewed and reminders were documented. Field notes consisting the context of the conversation, how the information was presented by the patients, the interview atmosphere, and reactions during the interview. Transcripts were compared with recordings and adjusted if necessary [ 11 , 12 ].

The timing and schedule for participants were not uniform, and because each participant may have had different ethical and behavioral characteristics, some conversations may not have required further questioning during the interview, while others may have prompted more questions from the interviewer. The interviews were conducted informally to allow for more detailed and nuanced opinions and discussions by the participants [ 11 , 12 ].

Data collection, transcription, and analysis were conducted simultaneously to allow for new topics to be raised and theoretical saturation to be reached. Theoretical saturation refers to when no new interviews add additional information required for a specific topic. When researchers determined that sufficient information was available for analysis and understanding of patient opinions and beliefs, the interview process was stopped [ 11 , 12 ].

Immediately after the first interview, individuals’ opinions were reviewed and coded separately by a researcher and continued until data saturation was reached (Fig.  1 ). Additionally, to increase the scientific accuracy and validity of the study, the cod es obtained from each interview were given back to the participants to ensure that the researchers’ interpretation of their opinions was accurate.

Saturation of data was reached after conducting six focus groups

Furthermore, individuals were allowed to fully express their opinions, experiences, and perspectives in this area, and their experiences and attitudes were evaluated (face-to-face). As all audio conversations were recorded with the participant’s permission, no note-taking was done during the interviews, which allowed for greater focus on the participants’ conversation [ 11 , 12 ].

Also, the following methods were used to minimize bias: start with building a diverse shortlist, standardize our interview process, make records of the interviews, involve multiple people in the interview process, and acknowledge bias in virtual interviews.

Data was analyzed using content analysis, and the analyzed data was classified and the number of respondents for each category was determined.

This study included 52 patients, all of whom participated in focus group interviews. There were 38 female and 14 male patients, with a mean age of 27.32 ± 1.4 years. All interviews were conducted in a private space and lasted between 20 and 30 min (Mean ± SD = 24.12 ± 4.78). Also, there was no repetition of interviews. Table  1 .

The codes related to participating patients in this study, along with the number of respondent groups for each code, was as follows:

Lack of understanding of the scope of work of physicians (21 codes).

Problems in the patient admission system in dentistry (34 codes).

Anxiety and fear of dentistry (28 codes).

Expensive dental services and inability to pay for dental expenses (25 codes).

Easier access to physicians (31 codes).

Dissatisfaction with previous dental care (17 codes).

Willingness and ability to pay for dental care (21codes).

Patients’ understanding of their symptoms and the scope of medical practice

A great number of participants (39 individuals) agreed that dental problems are more effectively treated by dentists. However, some (13 individuals) had doubts about who was the most appropriate person to consult for gum or other oral problems. For example, some of the patients went to ear, nose, and throat specialists, surgery, or even cosmetic dentistry for this purpose. Some participants (12 individuals) expressed a border between the situations treated by general practitioners and those requiring a dentist. Additionally, some (15 individuals) believed that general practitioners should treat oral problems such as jaw pain or gum sores, while dentists focus on teeth. In this regard, some patients reported reasons such as unusual pain or symptoms that did not match dental problems to justify their choice.

Some patients stated that general practitioners can easily treat dental problems caused by the infection. Additionally, a few participants were unaware that their condition was dental-related until they consulted a general practitioner.

Patients’ statements

“I didn’t have any toothache at all. My problem started with facial swelling. Then I had swelling under my jaw. I should see a general practitioner.”

“One of my relatives was a physician. I explained my problem over the phone and the infection was resolved with medication.”

Problems in the dental system

Some patients (34 individuals) visited a general practitioner for reasons such as not having a specific dentist, dissatisfaction with dental treatments, not having a dentist near their place of residence, no emergency dental care, and familiarity with general practitioners.

Waiting in line for a dental appointment was a common reason for visiting a general practitioner. Among participants who were unable to access a dentist, only a few attempted to go to emergency dental care. From the patients’ point of view, the timing of appointments with general practitioners was much wider than that of dentists. For a patient who has their own business, being able to access a dentist only during working hours means incurring financial losses. Additionally, another reason for visiting a general practitioner was the proximity and stronger relationship between patients and their general practitioner.

“Emergency dental care is not near our place of residence. Besides, students usually work in emergencies. At least there is a physician in clinics.”

“I tried several times to schedule an appointment with a dentist, but they told that it takes several days to get an appointment with a dentist. So, I decided to see a general practitioner.”

Dental anxiety

More than half of the patients (28 individuals) reported fear of dentistry or unpleasant experiences from previous dental treatments. This issue has contributed to non-participation in regular dental care over many years. In five cases, fear of dentistry was the main reason for patients to visit a general practitioner instead of a dentist. Some patients reported not having access to their dentist or not being given an appointment by their dentist as reasons for fear of visiting other dentists and visiting general practitioners instead.

“Instead of enduring dental stress, a toothache can be relieved with painkillers and antibiotics.”

Patient dissatisfaction with previous dental treatments

Patient dissatisfaction with prior dental care was notably evident in the patients’ statements, revealing a sequence of events that led them to seek treatment from a general practitioner. It seems that experiences in the first few dental visits are crucial, and dissatisfaction during these meetings more often leads to a reluctance to return for further treatments. Failures in dental treatments, unsightly dental restorations, and post-surgical complications all contribute to this feeling. Undertaking unnecessary treatments, the lack of a clear treatment plan, and prolonged waiting times despite severe dental pain were also the other reasons for consulting a general practitioner.

Other reasons included missing appointments or changing addresses, which made these individuals feel abandoned by their previously trusted dentists and unsure about where to seek dental care.

Inability to Afford Dental expenses

The inability to afford dental expenses was a significant reason for patients to consult a general practitioner. The extent of patients’ demand for treatment may be influenced by their values and willingness to pay for dental care. Some patients reported that they did not any visit a dentist due to unpaid bills from previous treatments and, therefore, consulted a general practitioner.

Patient statements

“If I have a dental problem at the end of the month, I always consult a general practitioner because I can’t afford the cost.”

“If I visit a dentist, I have to pay at least half the cost, and I don’t have a definite plan for dental maintenance. That’s why I turned to a general practitioner so I can decide later.”

“I don’t have the necessary funds for dental treatments.”

This study verifies and examines the reasons for patients consult general practitioners when experiencing dental problems. The obtained findings reveal that lack of individual understanding of the scope of medical professionals, issues within the dental care system, fear and anxiety about dentistry, inability to afford dental expenses, easier access to physicians, patients’ previous experiences with dental care, and dissatisfaction with prior treatments are among the reasons for these consultations.

A study conducted in the United Kingdom revealed that between 30 and 48 patients with dental problems consult regular general practitioners out of 7,000 registered patients annually [ 3 ]. In Australia, general practitioners manage and control oral problems in approximately 19.1 out of 100 individuals [ 3 ].

A research work by Verma et al. (67) revealed that 94% of patients with dental issues visited the emergency department of Royal Hobart Hospital, which is similar to statistics reported in other hospital emergency departments (1.8-3%) [ 8 , 9 ].

The findings by Cope et al. [ 3 ] are similar to another study that shows that although the presence of patients with dental issues in general practitioner offices is relatively low, they receive various treatments [ 1 ]. Consultations and the need for dental problem treatment may be less frequent than other infections, but it still poses a dilemma for some general practitioners [ 1 , 3 ].

Dental problems sometimes manifest with atypical features such as acute sinusitis [ 10 ] or orbital and auricular symptoms [ 11 ]. Recent research has recognized referred pains or pains that are difficult to distinguish as one of the reasons why patients consult general practitioners instead of dentists during dental problems [ 12 ]. However, it is currently not possible to estimate the ratio of patients who are influenced by misconceptions about their condition compared to those who are aware that their problem is related to their teeth or gums [ 13 ].

According to the study by Cope et al. [ 14 ], some patients believe that physicians receive more extensive training for managing facial and jaw problems than dentists. This perspective may be more common, especially in individuals who consult general practitioners with jaw or dental problems. This aligns with the findings of a study conducted in the United States, where 21% of participants who consulted a physician for dental pain believed that the physician could treat them [ 15 ].

In the study conducted by Cope et al. [ 12 ], the choice of oral health care provider for dental problems was influenced by patient characteristics, such as their understanding of the scope of practice and their willingness and ability to pay for dental care, as well as the characteristics of the healthcare providers. This study is in line with Levesque et al. [ 16 ], who proposed a framework in which access to healthcare is the result of dynamic interaction between the healthcare system and the population they serve. One of the main reasons participants without a specific dentist chose to consult a general practitioner was the lack of timely access to dental care.

Another reason for patients seeking general practitioners was anxiety and fear of dental procedures, which is consistent with the research by Cope et al. [ 12 ] and Levesque et al. [ 16 ]. Dental anxiety is a well-known significant factor affecting access to dental care and is a significant barrier that leads patients to consult general practitioners instead of dentists.

This study revealed that participants sought a general practitioner because of their inability or unwillingness to pay for dental care expenses. The cost of dental treatment had been described previously as a barrier to accessing dental care and a factor that might drive patients toward general practitioners. Reluctance to pay was also recognized as a known barrier to access.

In a study conducted in Wales, UK in 2015, the prescription of antibiotics for managing dental problems significantly varied among samples. Some general practitioners reported that they might not prescribe antibiotics for all patients with dental problems, but most patients receive antibiotics. In comparison, other general practitioners were highly resistant to prescribing antibiotics and only provided pain relief medications or advised patients to consult a dentist [ 14 ].

In the research conducted by Cope et al. [ 14 ], most general practitioners expressed that they have limited or no formal education in diagnosing and managing dental conditions. Therefore, most of their dental knowledge is informally gained through socializing with friends who are dentists, occasionally working alongside dentists to acquire knowledge, or sometimes being patients of dentists themselves, which helps them acquire knowledge. One problem with this type of learning is that it can lead to confusion among general practitioners when they receive mixed information about managing dental problems, especially regarding the use of antibiotics.

In the study by Cope and colleagues [ 14 ], a general practitioner expressed that the rate of antibiotic prescription for dental problems had decreased since the improvement in access to local emergency dental services. This means that doctors can guide patients to places with better dental care and have less commitment to making efforts and managing conditions.

In the research work by Cope et al. [ 14 ], one general practitioner similarly stated that antibiotic prescriptions for dental problems have decreased since access to local emergency dental services has improved. This means that doctors can refer patients to a place with better care and feel less of an obligation to try and manage the condition. In Cope et al. research [ 14 ], many doctors, especially those who did not routinely prescribe antibiotics for dental problems rejected the patient’s request for antibiotics; which caused patient dissatisfaction.

In Cope et al. [ 17 ] study, more than half of the treatments led to antibiotic prescriptions for dental problems. The widespread prescription of antibiotics for dental problems is concerning. Antibiotics may not resolve the issue in the long term, and they may interact with other medications and create antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, evidence suggests that prescribing antibiotics for dental problems may encourage future visits to general practitioners and reinforce the incorrect behavior of patients not seeking dental care for dental issues.

A study by Verma and colleagues [ 7 ] showed that the management of dental caries and infections primarily occurs through drugs such as pain relievers and antibiotics, which can be ineffective and, at best, provide short-term relief without addressing the patient’s need for definitive treatment by a dentist. Despite the increase in awareness of the importance of surgical treatments for managing dental problems among doctors, general practitioners are still considered unsuitable professionals for controlling dental problems. Therefore, there is a need for more effort to encourage people to seek appropriate dental care when they have dental problems, possibly through proper awareness by dental care providers or campaigns to educate people about healthcare professionals in this field for addressing dental issues.

In this study, the number of visits ranged from 1 to 20 per month, with most cases occurring during the night. The reported sequence by general practitioners for dental consultations varies. While some general practitioners visit patients with dental problems weekly, others report that dental consultations during their practice are much less frequent.

In the Cope et al. study [ 14 ], the reported number of dental consultations varied from once a week to once every few months. While some doctors stated that the number of dental consultations remains relatively stable, other doctors stated that the number of patients presenting with dental problems increases or decreases during their time in the office. The reduction in these referrals is related to improved access to dentistry or patient awareness of where they can access appropriate dental care.

Attitudes towards the management of dental problems can be much different. In the study by Cope et al. [ 14 ], some doctors stated that some of their colleagues stubbornly refuse to visit patients with dental problems, although they always do so with good manners. In comparison, general practitioners who strongly opposed the management of dental problems in medical practice expressed different degrees of consternation than those who willingly treated such patients. The doctors explained that in their experience, this will lead to an increase in the probability of patients coming back during the next period of toothache.

Despite the general negative attitude towards dental problems in medical practice, general practitioners sympathize with patients who experience dental problems. Doctors are aware of the debilitating effects of toothache as well as the complexities of accessing emergency dental services. This issue shows that many of the contradictions shown by general practitioners towards dental consultations are related to system defects that lead to insufficient access to emergency dental care. The exception in this case were the patients who were thought to do this to avoid the costs of dental services [ 14 ].

The attitude of general practitioners towards dental consultations is influenced by the burden and pressure of dental problems, the general pressure of the workload of medicine, and the perceptions of the patient’s motivation to request care. Cost concerns may be the main reason for avoiding dental care [ 7 ].

In the Cheng et al. study [ 18 ], problems related to oral and dental mucosa were reported as the most common problems. These findings are consistent with a study conducted by physicians in Ontario, Canada [ 19 ]. This study identified dental problems and supporting structures, hard tissue diseases, and soft tissue diseases of the mouth, except for gum and tongue lesions, as the most common oral conditions visited by physicians.

In Cope et al.‘s study [ 3 ], women visited more than men, which is similar to findings from other articles [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. The highest number of visits was for the age group of 20 to 29 years, and the reason was due to problems related to wisdom teeth and toothache.

In the study by Verma et al. [ 17 ], most patients were male. In South Korea and Ohio, 7.62% and 59% of emergency department visits were made by men, respectively [ 10 , 20 ].

In the investigation by Verma et al. [ 7 ] it was revealed that despite the wide age range of emergency department patients at Royal Hobart Hospital (from 0 to 88 years), the majority of patients are under 30 years old. 68% of patients visit the hospital during non-working hours when general dentists may not be available, which can lead to the need for dental services to be provided at Hobart Hospital during non-working hours.

Cheng et al. study [ 22 ] showed that the rate of individuals aged 70 and above visiting general practitioners for dental problems is significantly lower than those aged 54 and younger. These findings are consistent with the National Dental Health Survey of Australian adults in 2017–2018, which reported a decreasing trend in delaying or avoiding dental care due to cost in older age groups [ 23 ].

In Bell et al. study [ 5 ], the majority of patients preferred to consult with a medical practitioner rather than a dentist for non-dental jaw and facial problems. This result is similar to a survey of patients attending a rapid access clinic for suspected cancer cases, where 59% of patients presented to their general practitioner with a complaint of oral problems [ 24 ]. Another study on patient preference for oral ulcer therapy showed that 69% of patients preferred to consult with a general practitioner rather than a dentist for specific dental problems [ 25 ]. The results of the Bell et al. study [ 5 ] suggest that most patients perceive medical practitioners to have more training and therefore greater ability to deal with non-dental jaw and facial complaints. Additionally, most patients reported that their general practitioner is more accessible than their dentist.

In the Anderson et al. study [ 1 ], dental problems were seen in 44% of visits to dental clinics or 0.13% of all visits. However, nearly one-fifth of these visits were for non-dental problems that were also presented to family physicians. Many patients may also visit their physician without realizing that their symptoms have a dental origin. Although the presence of patients in general practitioner clinics is often seen as a major problem, this study found that only 0.3% of visits were for oral and dental health problems.

Similarly, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys/Royal College of General Practitioners study showed a low prevalence of oral and dental problems among family physician patients (185 consultations per 10,000 people) [ 26 ]. In Anderson et al.‘s study [ 1 ], patients with dental problems were generally in the age groups of 0–4 years and 16–44 years. A disproportionate number of weekend visits were shown for dental problems compared to all visits. Patients who met with their general practitioner more regularly had a stronger relationship with them and were therefore more likely to request help from them than from a dentist, with whom they have less frequent contact.

It was revealed by Bell et al. [ 5 ] that most participants find medical practitioners more accessible than dentists when scheduling appointments. This suggests that factors such as working hours, appointment systems, and waiting times can influence a patient’s decision to seek advice for dental problems [ 27 , 28 ]. The direct cost associated with dental treatments can be an effective factor in choosing a healthcare provider.

Since there is no single reason why patients with dental problems visit their general practitioner, it seems that there will be no single solution to ensure that patients seek the most professional individuals capable of managing their dental conditions. However, there is a need to overcome barriers that prevent access to dental care. It may also be necessary to take action to increase access to emergency dental care for patients who do not have a specific dentist and to ensure that dentists have timely access to emergency care for their patients so that they do not have to wait long periods during which they may seek care from a general practitioner. These findings also indicate a need for information on where to seek care for oral diseases, especially the role that dentists can play in managing non-dental oral problems. This information should be tailored to reflect local dental service providers along with treatment costs. General practice teams should also be able to guide patients with dental problems to local emergency dental services or other care resources if necessary. The limitations of this study were non-cooperation of some patients and the lengthening of several interviews.

Most participants agreed that dental problems are more effectively treated by dentists, because of the lack of a specific dentist, dissatisfaction with dental treatments, lack of a dentist nearby, absence of emergency dental care, and familiarity with a family physician. The most common reasons for visits were toothache and dental abscesses. Patients also sought treatment for TMJ pain, referred nerve pain, wisdom tooth pain, numbness and tingling in the jaw, gum inflammation, oral lesions, and ulcers. Furthermore, other factors such as opening hours, appointment systems and waiting time can also effects on patient’s consult behaviors regarding dental problems.

Mention specific recommendations for future research

This in turn should facilitate the design of interventions to reduce consultation rates for dental problems in general medical practice in Iran. This could be approached using qualitative methods, in order to capture the richness and complexity of influences on patients’ care-seeking behavior. Alternatively, a cross-sectional design could be employed, in which dominant influences on consultation behavior are quantified amongst a representative sample of the Iranian population who have sought care from a general medical practitioner for a dental problem. There is therefore a need for further high-quality studies exploring the reasons why patients in Iran may seek care from a general medical practitioner general medical practitioner when experiencing dental problems.

Data availability

Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Anderson R, Richmond S, Thomas DW. Patient presentation at medical practices with dental problems: an analysis of the 1996 General Practice Morbidity Database for Wales. Br Dent J. 1999;186:297–300.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rezvaninezhad R, Navabi N, Atai Z, Shahravan A. The Effect Co2 laser on reducing Pain Associated with Aphthous Stomatitis. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2016;18:20–5.

Google Scholar  

Cope AL, Chestnutt IG, Wood F, Francis NA. Dental consultations in UK general practice and antibiotic prescribing rates: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2016; 10;15–23.

Anderson R, Calder L, Thomas DW. Antibiotic prescribing for dental conditions: general medical practitioners and dentists compared. Br Dent J. 2000;188(7):398–400.

Bell GW, Smith GLF, Rodgers JM. Patient choice of primary care practitioner for orofacial symptoms. Br Dent J. 2008;204:669–73.

Felgner S, Henschke C. Patients’ preferences in dental care: a discrete-choice experiment and an analysis of willingness-to-pay. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(2):e0280441.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Verma S, Chambers I. Dental emergencies presenting to a general hospital emergency department in Hobart, Australia. Australian Dent J. 2014;59:329–33.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kingon A. Solving dental problems in general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 2009;38(4):211–6.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cope AL, Chestnutt IG, Wood F, Francis NA. Dental consultations in UK general practice and antibiotic prescribing rates: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66:e326–329.

Article   Google Scholar  

Liebgott B. Dental considerations of the maxillary sinus. Univ Tor Dent J. 1998;1:35–8.

Embong Z, Ismail S, Thanaraj A, Hussein A. Dental infection presenting with ipsilateral parapharyngeal abscess and contralateral orbital cellulitis - a case report. Malaysian J Med Sci. 2007;14:62–6.

Cope AL, Wood F, Francis NA, Chestnutt IG. Patients’ reasons for consulting a GP when experiencing a dental problem: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68:e877–83.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cope A, Butt K, Chestnutt I. Why might patients in the UK consult a general medical practitioner when experiencing dental problems? A literature review of patients’ perspectives. Community Dent Health. 2018; 35: of 235 – 40.

Cope AL, Wood F, Francis NA, Chestnutt IG. General practitioners’ attitudes towards the management dental conditions and use of antibiotics in these consultations: a qualitative study. BMJ open. 2015;5:e008551.

Cohen LA, Bonito AJ, Akin DR, Manski RJ, Macek MD, Edwards RR, et al. Toothache pain: a comparison of visits to physicians, emergency departments and dentists. J Ame Dent Assoc. 2008;139:12–6.

Levesque JF, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centered access to health care: conceptualizing access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:18.

Peres MA, Macpherson LM, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394:249–60.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cohen LA, Bonito AJ, Eicheldinger C, Manski RJ, Macek MD, Edwards RR, et al. Comparison of patient visits to emergency departments, physician offices, and dental offices for dental problems and injuries. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71:13–22.

Cheng AL, Eberhard J, Gordon J, Balasubramanian M, Willink A, Sohn W, Dai J, et al. Encounters and management of oral conditions at general medical practices in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:1013.

LaPlante NC, Singhal S, Maund J, Quinonez C. Visits to physicians for oral health-related complaints in Ontario. Can Can J Public Health. 2015;106:e127–31.

White D, Pitts N, Steele J. Disease and related disorders - a report from the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009. Leeds: The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2011.

Morris J, Chenery V, Douglas G, Treasure E. Service considerations — a report from the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009. Leeds: The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2011.

Chrisopoulos S, Luzzi L, Ellershaw A. Dental Care. editor.Australia’s oral health: National Study of adult oral health 2017–18. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide; 2019. pp. 97–124. ARCPOH.

Rodgers JM, Macpherson LMD, Smith GLF, Crighton AJ, Carton ATM, Conway DI. Characteristics of patients attending rapid access clinics during the West of Scotland Cancer Awareness Program oral cancer campaign. Br Dent J. 2007;202:E28.

Gill Y, Scully C. Mouth ulcers: a study of where members of the general public might seek advice. Br Dent J. 2007;202:E16.

Mansour MH, Cox SC. Patients presenting to the general practitioner with pain of dental origin. Med J Aust. 2006;185:64–7.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Inter J Qual Health Care. 2007;6:349–57.

Nazeri AM, Nakhaee N, Navabi N. Validation of an ultrashort persian version of oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5) questionnaire. Pesquisa Brasileira Em Odontopediatria E Clínica Integrada. 2020;20:e5073.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Vice Deputy of Research at Kerman University of Medical Sciences for their financial support (Reg. No. 401000594). This project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the university with the code IR.KMU.REC.1401.477.

No funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kerman Social Determinants on Oral Health Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Raziyehsadat Rezvaninejad

Department of Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Maryam Alsadat Hashemipour & Mina Mirzaei

Neuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Haleh Rajaeinia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Raziyehsadat Rezvaninejad: wrote the main manuscript text Maryam Alsadat Hashemipour: wrote the main manuscript text Mina Mirzaei : data collectionHaleh Rajaeinia: data collection.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Alsadat Hashemipour .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences by the research deputy of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. A statement to confirm that all experimental protocols were approved by the research deputy of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Informed verbal consent was obtained from the participants for examinations and participation in the study following the provision of the needed explanations by the research deputy of Kerman University of Medical Sciences. All the information on the subjects will remain confidential. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Vice Deputy of Research at Kerman University of Medical Sciences for their financial support (Reg. No. 401000594). This project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the university with the code IR.KMU.REC.1401.477. All experiments were performed according to relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Coreq (consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research) checklist: 32-item checklist.

Developed from:

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007. Volume 19, Number 6: pp. 349–357. (Ref:26)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rezvaninejad, R., Hashemipour, M.A., Mirzaei, M. et al. Patients’ reasons for consulting a general practitioner at the time of having dental problems: a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health 24 , 1130 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04899-y

Download citation

Received : 06 February 2024

Accepted : 11 September 2024

Published : 27 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04899-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Consultation
• Dental problems
• Qualitative study

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

• General enquiries: [email protected]