Criteria for Good Qualitative Research
A personal perspective
Mitch Land, PhD
For several days, I’ve been jotting down words, insights, comments and personal
anecdotes in the margins of assigned articles on notebook paper as I pored over the
readings, listened during our class discussions and reflected on my own experiences, all
in an effort to identify the criteria for good qualitative research. Perhaps this very process
has been a mini-exercise in qualitative research in that data were collected, rigorously
recorded along with personal comments and loosely arranged in provisional categories by
a “researcher” who temporarily set aside his particular conceptual framework to work
under the assumptions of the qualitative perspective. Indeed, the amount of data thus far
collected indicate the need for a much more thorough treatment of the question than ten
pages will allow. Happily, a sense of closure conveniently occurred as the time for
writing the paper arrived; the data began to indicate a convergence of elements at one
particular site and to suggest a framework for this less than comprehensive report of the
findings.
Words such as openness, surprise, honesty, integrity, humility, trust, acceptance,
tolerance, patience, insight, tact and many others seem to characterize the good
researcher in the process of conducting good qualitative work. The phrase, “burden of
the researcher” began to make sense as it became increasingly clear to me that the
researcher is the research instrument. He1 does not rely exclusively, if at all, on
carefully controlled laboratory experiments, sophisticated computer programs, succinct
survey instruments or other similar mechanistic, “unpolluted” devices. It is through his
sentient being—the instrument of his own person—that the data from his field of inquiry
(which he sees as process not product) must pass to those who will attend to his findings.
It follows that the researcher bears a heavy responsibility in laying aside biases,
rigorously noting context, conscientiously observing and recording phenomena, listening
attentively to multitudes of informants, building trust, maintaining confidences,
responding appropriately to sometimes disagreeable or silly informants, judiciously
identifying cogent connections that enlighten the data, looking with great hope for
resonance and keeping the faith as he watches wistfully his newly appropriated theories
crumble; or, when they do hold true, realizing that his delight is only an ephemeral
2
ecstasy because theories and connections alter even as his field of inquiry continues its
never ending process of change.
Hence, it becomes necessary constantly to minimize flaws in the researcher as
instrument at every stage of the complex process: the researcher vis-à-vis himself; the
researcher vis-à-vis the field and his observed subjects; and the researcher vis-à-vis his
data. Although a book chapter could be devoted to each of these sites, a brief
examination at each suggests some of the criteria for good qualitative research.
Researcher and his Self-awareness
Good qualitative research begins at the site of the researcher himself as he
recognizes that he comes to the field of inquiry, not as a sterile instrument free from the
contamination of outside influences, but as one who possesses informed conceptual
frameworks. As he comes to terms with the limitations and possibilities of his conceptual
frameworks, he rightfully affirms his claim as qualified research instrument. He is then
ready to proceed cautiously into the field.
The good qualitative researcher understands that he is subject to particular
conceptual frameworks and methodologies established during his academic training and
shaped by experience. However, he refuses to impose these frameworks upon the human
phenomena he chooses to observe without giving sufficient opportunity for data to inform
his observations. A recent experience I had helped me see the tendency to impose a
particular conceptual framework in research. I shared with a colleague in the sociology
department my interest in finding out if Baptists use religious symbols to mediate their
religious experiences, despite their Swingli/Calvinist tradition that disdains the use of
symbols as aids to worship. I had in mind the recently installed stained-glass windows
that form an elaborate backdrop to the choir, orchestra and pulpit in the largest Baptist
church in Austin.
She responded skeptically, “I don’t think you’ll find anything rich enough there;
people probably don’t pay any attention to those.”
I politely disagreed. “I don’t think we can know the answer to that without asking
the people themselves,” I said.
2
3
She countered, “Well, I say that from my own experience as a Catholic; I never
paid any attention to those…”
It never occurred to her that the majority of Baptist churches are not similarly
adorned and that these “icons” may have imposed themselves in new ways to
inexperienced non-Catholics or that this may be a mere starting point for a much wider
inquiry into religious symbols of all kinds. This statement surprised me since I expected
her to have a completely different approach to human research, more in keeping with a
cultural perspective. It became clear as our conversation progressed that her particular
research was driven by a specific sociological framework (Bourdieu) –and thus heavily
Marxist—that may determine what she finds in her field observations. And although she
may eschew the limited empirical/positivist approach and opt for a qualitative
methodology, her theoretical perspective may be no less restrictive. It seems to me that
she will always find cultural capital because that’s what she’s looking for, while keeping
her eyes closed to other possible explanations of human phenomena.
I suspect that the researcher who refuses to break away from a “pet” theoretical
perspective enjoys the sense of order and security it implies and its tendency to relieve
him of the responsibility of listening with genuine openness to the expressions of his
informants/respondents. However, the qualitative researcher who is determined to do
good research will not allow his research to be driven by his favorite theoretical view or
its particular methodology.2
Preferred conceptual frameworks are not limited to scientific theories of society
or culture. They also include cultural biases. My personal experiences in Africa were
fraught with this problem.
When I went to Africa, I looked at the phenomena around me through eyeglasses
tinted the hues of Western culture and culturally-specific theological presuppositions;
hence, my personal theoretical view. Shedding such conceptual skins is a most difficult
task, perhaps ultimately impossible. Indeed, it is the rare Westerner who genuinely
arrives at this stage of cross-cultural ideal. Even Albert Schweitzer, the paragon of
selfless missionary zeal and devotion, repeatedly called his Africans, “children,”
revealing classic Western paternalism. Of course, you give it your best effort. You smile
and hold your temper (because you’re the Christian missionary; you’re supposed to be
3
4
holy!) while the African bank teller continues to count her issued currency a full fifteen
minutes after opening time—something that would NEVER happen in an American
bank! You’re thinking, “Doesn’t she know time is money, the customer is always right,
money determines clout, my mission account is huge, therefore I have clout”—all in the
best tradition of American capitalism, which tends to confuse human worth with net
worth.
Without fail, you invariably compare every cultural situation in terms of the
Western model, which becomes your standard of validation.
I’ll never forget our first few days in Africa. Our gardener stood in the front yard
clapping his hands—two blows at 10 second intervals—until we finally attended to his
needs. With images of Yul Brynner as Pharaoh clapping for his servants in Cecil B.
deMille’s The Ten Commandments, I said to my wife, “Well, from now on, our yard man
will knock at the door. We’re not the servants!” So, forgetting everything we learned at
missionary orientation about ethno-centric pitfalls and that differences between cultures
are not appropriate criteria for measuring validity, we proceeded to demand the Western
mode of announcement, thereby forcing our employee to violate the rules of courtesy as
defined by his own culture. It took months for us to realize that for him it was taboo to
approach uninvited too near a private dwelling.
In addition to laying aside cultural biases of a general nature, I recognize that my
presence in Africa is a statement of my theological presuppositions, some of which are
culturally specific. 3 But these too should be placed on the back burner in order to enter
my field of inquiry, not as a spiritual counselor, judge or investigator, but as a learner,
genuinely seeking to understand a vastly different culture in its own terms. As learner, I
may discover an enlightenment that does not contradict, but rather enhances the core
ontological presuppositions of my conceptual framework. Indeed, I should not be
surprised if findings altered additional aspects of my conceptual framework.
Paternalism, superiority complexes, cultural/religious biases and sometimes latent
prejudices aggregate into a conceptual framework that stands in the way of meaningful
cross-cultural relationships. Such obstacles have no place in good qualitative work.
Self-awareness includes more than just recognizing the limitations of conceptual
frameworks. It rightfully affirms the researcher as credible observer and interpreter of
4
5
cultural processes, acknowledging his unique ability, as fellow participant, to bring new
perspective and understanding to the field of inquiry. In short, the researcher engaged in
good qualitative research maintains a healthy self-respect for his own abilities and
cultural value as research instrument.
Researcher and his Field
Although a successful process of self-awareness places the researcher’s
conceptual frameworks in perspective, it does not imply that the researcher enters the
field like a blank disk, ready to be programmed by the observed phenomenon. Were this
even possible, the researcher would be incapable of seeing the forest because he would
have become one of the trees! Rather, several theoretical perspectives may wait in the
wings like actors on call ready to enter the scene when invited while intriguing questions
may initiate their own appearances, willing to withdraw and defer to superior questions if
the former are deemed irrelevant or inadequate. The nature of the field and its data
determine both the usefulness of old or new theoretical perspectives for understanding
and the appropriateness of questions. The researcher allows the situation, the subjects
and his own interactions to indicate his methods of inquiry. That is, the ideas that emerge
during the observing and listening processes may suggest additional operations for
exploring them—new and different doors and passageways to explore. For example, the
circumstances of a specific moment may determine that the researcher conduct in-depth
interviews or merely observe, while other circumstances may call for a day in the library.
In all cases, good qualitative research is characterized by a process of simultaneous
operations of question definition and re-definition, theory construction and reconstruction, and varying methodological strategies that are appropriate to the questions.
A contextual approach to the field also characterizes good qualitative research.
This is important for the researcher who seeks to establish credibility and trust with his
informants. This should begin with as thorough an understanding of the field context as
possible at the outset, whether the subjects are street people of Austin, youths at the local
pub or natives in Borneo. This may be one of the points at which a literature search
would benefit the inquiry by contributing additional data as well as by preparing the
researcher for meaningful people encounters.
5
6
In the cross-cultural situation, it is essential that the researcher speak the language
of his subjects and acquire an in-depth understanding of their customs and mores. The
above account of my unsuccessful encounters with African greeting customs illustrates
this point too well. It has been my experience that knowledge of African context,
language and customs and the willingness to tap these resources, albeit imperfectly at
times, invariably facilitated my relationships with African individuals. The obvious
knowledge and appropriate use of context demonstrate a genuine appreciation for their
rich and complex cultural content—an appreciation not lost on the African subjects.
Additional criteria for good qualitative research at the researcher/subject
encounter include mutual agreement to associate, assurances of anonymity of
respondent when so indicated, respect for the respondent and his/her construction of
reality and candidness on the part of the researcher and his intentions; good research
does not take place surreptitiously. It seems obvious that attributes such as kindness,
patience, courtesy, tact and genuine interest and effort to see the world from the subjects’
points of view are a few of the many more additional criteria for good qualitative
research at the researcher/subject encounter stage.
Researcher and his Data
A number of criteria for good qualitative research apply to the data gathering and
evaluation processes. Data gathering should be more than just memory storage. Field
notes should be characterized by an on-going dialogue between the researcher as
discoverer and cultural analyst and by cautious avoidance of premature categorization or
closure. This does not mean to imply precluding logically organizing the data into
manageable form, even into loosely defined categories that facilitate description.
However, the researcher should allow the data to accumulate and speak for themselves
before prematurely arranging analytical categories and typologies that risk prescribing
which data are seen and gathered from the field and which are ignored. In addition,
sufficient time should be given for contradictions as well as confirmations from the field
to test emerging provisional hypotheses.
The question arises then, when do the simultaneous processes of description and
provisory interpretations (hence the growing heap of data) lead to summative
6
7
interpretations and/or a mini-theory of some kind? I suggest that the data themselves
determine this moment in the sense that connections (e.g., typologies) push their way up
from within and point to a conceptual framework consistent with the data. An inner logic
develops in the field notes that begin to narrate meaning. That is, the researcher
identifies the several threads, which tend to intertwine with each other, weaving a
tapestry of meaningful patterns that portrays the field of inquiry. The needlework stays
intact because the contradictions have failed to unravel the connecting threads. True to
the basic assumptions of the qualitative perspective, the tapestry is illustrative rather than
critical.
Realizing that his conclusions are not final or necessarily accurate, the researcher,
bent on good qualitative work, displays his tapestry for commentary. Critics include a
sample of the members of the field, his pears, possibly experiences of similar research
documented in the literature and his own intuition. His most important critics are those
whose experiences his tapestry ostensibly portrays. Do the patterns and images
accurately mirror the reality of their experiences? Do the descriptive thread (notes) and
tapestry (summative interpretations) reveal inner logic and consistency to the researcher’s
colleagues who are familiar with the qualitative approach? Does it appear to these
colleagues that the researcher maintained conceptual distance from the data in order to
allow the data to speak forth? Does literature support his findings? If not, is there a
problem with the literature? And very importantly, is the researcher at ease with his
results?
In the final analysis, only the researcher knows if he followed the criteria for good
qualitative research. He knows whether or not he entered the field, relatively
unconstrained from biases, open to the surprises of his dynamic field of study and
sensitive to the expressions documented from that field. He knows better than anyone
else if his people encounters were characterized by the qualities of positive interpersonal
relationship: honesty, integrity, genuine concern, courtesy, etc. If the researcher knows
that to the best of his ability, he conducted a thorough study of the field, and the resulting
analyses make sense to him, to his subjects and to his peers, then he should present his
findings in a way that is consistent with their nature. Good qualitative research has no
7
8
apologies to make and should not feel compelled to conform to the conventions of
differing approaches to research.
-----------1
2
I opt for the masculine form as I try to identify myself in the researcher’s role.
Of course, I realize that the qualitative approach is also a theoretical perspective;
but it’s one whose basic premise is to avoid imposing theory at the beginning of the
process of inquiry.
3
I realize that sociologists, culturalists and others hold that religion in any form is
purely a socio-cultural institution. This is in conflict with my own epistemological
stance. Although I recognize that the expressions of the Christian religion have been, to a
great extent, culturally defined, its content (e.g., eternal Biblical principles) supersedes
the limitations of socio-cultural specificities.
8