Qualitative Methodology

Armin Scholl

University of Münster

Qualitative methodology is basically characterized by its openness towards the research object in order to reconstruct its attributes authentically and to gain a deeper insight into these attributes. As a consequence, the research process includes an interactive and close relationship between the researcher and the researched persons or material rather than an objective, detached, or neutral relationship.

Principal Aim of Qualitative Methodology

Insofar as methods are not considered neutral tools to describe and explain reality as objects, researchers are part of the social reality under study. In action research, e.g., researched persons are even considered participants of a common research aim, which should be cooperatively and commonly developed (→ Participatory Action Research). The researcher’s subjectivity does not impede the quality of the research results; it is clearly visible within the research process and guarantees a successful collection of information about the researched phenomenon and an in-depth understanding of it. The results of qualitative research processes are context-bound (‘thick’) descriptions, which can be enriched by choosing varying perspectives and tools.

Therefore qualitative research approaches often include a combination of methods, e.g., ethnography (→ Ethnography of Communication), which combines participant → observation and in-depth interviews (→ Interview, Qualitative). Such combinations do not only provide a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of the researched phenomena but also stabilize the results of a research process and make the descriptions and information more reliable and more valid than by using only single-method strategies.

Characteristics of Qualitative Methodology

There are some further features characterizing qualitative methodology, which are relevant and helpful for a better comprehension but which are not necessarily exclusive characteristics of qualitative methodology. In most of the cases qualitative methodology tries to discover new hypotheses in an explorative rather than confirmative manner. The procedure of qualitative research often starts with open research questions and eventually results in hypotheses or theory building. However, it is possible to test previously raised hypotheses qualitatively, too.

Gathering and analyzing information are not strictly separated but sometimes are interconnected. The Grounded Theory approach, for example, includes alternate steps of collecting information and of preliminary analysis of them in order to collect further information of the research object until the researcher considers the knowledge gained is saturated (→ Grounded Theory). In contrast to this kind of spiral-like research process, for example, in-depth interviewing is separated from its analysis whether analysis of the interviewee’s answers is a hermeneutic interpretation or a qualitative content analysis. It is even possible to combine qualitative data collection with standardized methods of coding and statistical methods.

Although, in the main, the understanding of → meaning characterizes the aim of qualitative research, it would be a mistake to attribute this aim to qualitative research exclusively, because all kinds of social or cultural research share this characteristic to a greater or lesser degree. Even the strictest hypothesis-testing approach within → quantitative methodology does not work mechanically by simple statistical decisions. Instead, data and statistical results need further interpretation and a deeper understanding than mere counting.

The research process involves a more intensive and more specific relationship between the researcher and the researched persons or material. This applies especially to ethnography or action research. Although the degree of intensity distinguishes all qualitative approaches from quantitative and standardized methodology, it varies within qualitative approaches, too.

The most relevant criteria of evaluating qualitative research are considered the step-by-step transparency of the research procedures. This is again common to all scientific research, even if it has a special connotation within qualitative methodology. So-called communicative → validity is a more specific criterion, which implies that the researcher does not only rely on their own analysis and interpretation but confirms it with the help of the researched persons.

Finally, generalizing the results does not include a quantitative aspect, such as representativeness, but is achieved if the conclusions of the results are transferrable to other settings or contexts than those under study. Again, this is not specific to qualitative methodology, as the abstractions of results are characteristic of all kinds of scientific research. However, the strategy of generalization in qualitative methodology is different from quantitative methodology, as it tries to conclude generalizability from the intensively elaborated context even of single or individual cases.

All in all, qualitative research can be regarded as an effort to develop a methodology which matches particular phenomena under study rather than applying general methods and tools to any phenomena. Therefore, it is not its aim to contribute to a universal methodological framework but it is limited to the study of psychical, social, or cultural fields of research and the disciplines involved.

Methods and Tools in Qualitative Methodology

Some prominent methods in qualitative methodology will be described briefly. With the help of observation, events and actions can be investigated. There is a preference for participant observation in qualitative research in order to develop a closer relationship to the people observed. Interviewing can be very open, such as narrative interviewing (storytelling), or structured (although flexible), such as guided interviews. Unlike individual interviews, focus groups consist of moderated discussions among a group of respondents (discussants). Qualitative content analysis is a method for developing categories from texts or visual material, including media content as well as transcribed interview texts, documents, or video-taped observations (→ Content Analysis, Qualitative). The most open and less rule-based kind of interpretation are (social scientific) → hermeneutics, which are particularly used in analyzing narratives or stories. Conversation analysis serves as a tool to analyze dialogues (→ Conversation Analysis) while → discourse analysis is applied to discursive and argumentative communication. Qualitative experiments use a particular stimulus to explore the range of subjects’ reactions.

As research instruments are open and flexible, so are sampling procedures. In qualitative research they are mostly deliberative or purposive and not random (→ Sampling, Random). The sample should either be homogeneous, in order to find the small distinction among the sample units, or heterogeneous, in order to cover maximum variation and find the commonalities (and differences) among the sample units. Very often sampling procedures are driven by convenience if access to the field or population investigated is hard to gain. However, sampling procedures are far from being arbitrary; instead they are coherent and consistent with the research questions and the theoretical aim of the study.

References and Suggested Readings

1. Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
5. Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (eds.) (2004). Qualitative research practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Silverman, D. (2006). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (eds.) (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Quality of the News

Adam Jacobsson

Stockholm University

Eva-Maria Jacobsson

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Quality of the news is a difficult and complex concept to define. Quality depends in part on what uses and gratifications are demanded from the media and by whom.

From a normative viewpoint a high-quality news service is expected to help citizens make informed decisions that in turn will help develop society. This view has support from disciplines other than journalism and mass communication studies, such as economics. Here, a high-quality news service is perceived to help economic development, as it reduces uncertainty by providing accurate and reliable information. In political science the media is seen as the fourth estate, informing citizens, maintaining checks and balances on the political process, and thereby increasing the efficiency of government and helping to resolve social conflict by giving a multifaceted description of events, among other things. The above functions are largely supported by what the journalism and mass communication literature describes as commonly shared professional standards of → journalism (→ Standards of News). Sometimes, however, there is tension between these standards and a demand for a lighter kind of news reporting, geared toward entertaining → sensationalism that pits professionalism against commercialism (→ Commercialization: Impact on Media Content).

Generally, research divides the definitions of news media quality into three sub-categories: content, organizational, and financial commitment (Hollifield 2006). Some measures for content are balance (→ Bias in the News), fairness, or lack of sensationalism. Organizational aspects of quality can be divided into two major categories: ‘Editorial quality’ includes editorial independence and courage, while ‘financial commitment’ again comprises sub-categories like the advertising: editorial copy ratio, the size of the news staff, or the number of news agencies subscribed to.

References and Suggested Readings

1. Becker, L. B., Hollifield, C. A., Jacobsson, A., Jacobsson, E.-M., & Vlad, T. (2009). Is more always better? Examining the adverse effects of competition on media performance. Journalism Studies, 10(3), 368–385.
2. Bogart, L. (2004). Reflections on content quality in newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, 25(1), 40–53.
3. Hollifield, C. A. (2006). News media performance in hypercompetitive markets: An extended model. International Journal on Media Management, 8(2), 60–69.
4. Kim, K.-H. & Meyer, P. (2005). Survey yields five factors of newspaper quality. Newspaper Research Journal, 26(1), 6–15.

Quantitative Methodology

Armin Scholl

University of Münster

The results of polls tell us how many people intend to vote for a certain political party, watch TV more than four hours a day, or favor a certain TV program. We call methods of collecting and analyzing such data ‘quantitative methodology’ because individuals’ attributes are counted in large numbers.

Aims of Quantitative Methodology

The main aim of quantitative methodology is comparison and measurement (→ Measurement Theory). To compare individuals, text units, or behavior it is necessary to have a common basis as a starting point for comparison. The logic of quantitative methodology is basically the logic of standardization, which implies reducing context complexity around the research object in question. With the help of standardization it is possible to measure the attributes of research units that can be analyzed as ‘variables.’

One can standardize either different features of the research process or the research process as a whole. Standardizing the entire research process means proceeding systematically and in a certain order of procedures. If hypotheses, which can be deduced from abstract theories, are available, a confirmative research strategy will be preferred to test whether the hypotheses are right or false. Starting with research questions without hypotheses implies an explorative research strategy. Theoretical concepts used in hypotheses must then be translated into empirical indicators (→ Operationalization). Furthermore, a sample of research units needs to be selected. The following process of data collection demands a direct contact and interaction between researcher and the research field explored. After collection, the data will be analyzed with quantitative (statistical) tools and interpreted in the context of the research questions or hypotheses.

Methods, Instruments and Research Designs

The most relevant objects of standardization are the research instrument and the research situation. In polls and surveys people are questioned about their opinion toward certain social phenomena (→ Public Opinion Polling; Survey; Election Surveys). The respondent’s opinion is treated as a variable that can be separated from other (measurable) attributes. The wording and the order of the questions are laid down in a questionnaire. The interviewer is admonished to follow the interviewing rules strictly. The respondent has to fit the answers to preformed categories of answers, such as ‘strongly agree,’ ‘somewhat agree,’ ‘don’t know,’ ‘somewhat disagree,’ and ‘strongly disagree.’

The research instrument of content analysis is called a ‘codebook.’ It includes a set of standardized semantic categories of attributes that are relevant for the research questions, and which the coder searches for within the documents (text, proposition, photograph, film, etc.). Coding categories can be formal elements (such as the length of an article or the position of an article within a newspaper), semantic variables (such as the theme of an article or actor-related categories), or pragmatic variables (such as the assessments of actors, organizations, or arguments,). A coding manual or commentary contains the coding rules the coder has to apply to the material to be coded.

With regard to observational methods, the observer pays attention to overt behavior or apparent attributes of observed people, which are recorded on a code sheet or a list with given categories (→ Observation). Other concomitants spontaneously observed are not of interest in the context of the standardized schedule. The coding process works analogously to the coding process of content analysis.

As well as the research instrument and the research situation, the complete research design and the process of data collection can also be standardized. Within experimental research designs (→ Experiment, Laboratory) independent variables are controlled with the help of manipulated stimulus material or the treatment of experimental subjects. In order to test causal effects (dependent variables), subjects are randomly allocated to experimental groups and/or a control group. This experimental design proves the causal effect hypothesized if the experimental group and the control group clearly differ with respect to a dependent variable. Alternatively, experimental designs compare several measurements of the same subjects: Between the points of measurement subjects are exposed to a stimulus. If measurements of the dependent variable differ clearly between the measurements the stimulus has caused the effect.

Longitudinal research uses trend or panel designs. In trend studies the same research instrument is used for different samples at different points of time. The collected data can be analyzed with the help of time-series statistics (→ Longitudinal Analysis). In panel designs, standardized measurements can be repeated several times for the same sample.

Sampling Procedure and Data Analysis

Quantitative methodology requires sufficiently large samples (of respondents or text units) for data analysis, which aims at generalizing the results and representing a population to which the study refers. A random sampling technique tries to maintain the chance of getting into the sample (approximately) equal for every unit (→ Sampling, Random). If some relevant parameters of the total population are known, a quota-sampling is also possible. The distributions of these variables in the total population serve as quota instructions for the sampling procedure, which makes sure that the distributions in the sample represent the distributions in the total population. Other sampling procedures and techniques vary according to the research question or the data-collection method applied.

Data can be analyzed with the help of statistical procedures and tools. They are used to describe the collected variables (univariate statistics) or to correlate variables (bivariate statistics; → Correlation Analysis). Information about the sample distribution is expressed as means and standard deviation of variables; information about the correlation of variables can be documented in cross-tabulations or mean comparisons between group variables. It is also possible to test complex theoretical models with many variables (multivariate statistics).

Evaluative Criteria for Quantitative Research

Quantitative methodology is based on certain criteria to assess its quality. These criteria are objectivity, → validity, and → reliability. The notion of objectivity is somewhat misleading because it neither implies truth in an epistemological sense nor does it neglect the researcher’s subjectivity. Instead, objectivity is related to the research process and procedures. Research procedures have to be systematically planned and carried out. In that sense, objectivity has been replaced by the notion of ‘intersubjectivity.’

The same is true for validity: a research instrument is valid if it measures what it claims to measure. Validity is a criterion to assess the relationship between theoretical concept and empirical indicator. To measure the relevance of media coverage on a certain theme with the help of the position of articles in a newspaper makes sense because front-page news is considered more relevant than articles placed at the back of the newspaper. Reliability is a more formal criterion, which can be mathematically calculated as a coefficient of agreement and of stability: In content analysis, for example, the coding scheme is reliable if different coders use it in the same way with the same coding results (inter-coder-reliability) or if the same coder uses it the same way at the beginning of the coding procedure as at its end (intra-coder-reliability).

In sum, quantitative methodology is characterized by a relationship between (1) standardization of research instruments, research situations, and research designs; (2) quantification of analysis; (3) generalization of results gained from samples; and (4) systematizing research procedures. Research is a technical and rule-based process. The underlying premise says that standardizing method and research procedure create a common basis of preconditions, which allows for comparison across different research objects.

References and Suggested Readings

1. Adèr, H. J. (ed.) (1999). Research methodology in the life, behavioural and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
3. Kaplan, D. (ed.) (2004). Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (eds.) (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Questions and Questioning

Irene Koshik

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

Any discussion of questions and questioning needs to distinguish between questions as a linguistic form and the social actions accomplished through this form. Questions can be formed in a variety of ways. Wh-questions use question words such as ‘which,’ or ‘how.’ Polar (yes/no) questions are formed in English by inversion of subject and auxiliary (or do-auxiliary) or by using rising instead of falling intonation on declarative statements (Quirk et al. 1985). In other languages they can be formed using phrases or particles. Even declarative statements with falling intonation can, in some contexts, be heard as questions (Heritage 2012).

Questions are used for a variety of functions other than asking for information. They are used to initiate repair on prior talk (e.g., “Huh?”), for invitations (“Wanna have lunch with me?”), offers (“Would you like some coffee?”), and requests (“Can I borrow your pen?”). Some questions, commonly known as ‘rhetorical questions,’ can be used as accusations, challenges, or complaints, e.g., “Why is it that we have to go there?” (Koshik 2005). Questions are used in culture-specific ways to perform these actions.

According to conversation analysts, questions are first pair parts (→ Conversation Analysis), initiating courses of action and making certain kinds of responses relevant. The question form can put constraints on the form of answers , e.g., polar questions make relevant ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. However, when participants disagree with a presupposition embedded in a polar question, they can give a “non-type-conforming answer” that displays that the question is problematic (Raymond 2003).

With some exceptions (e.g., self-deprecations), responses that forward the action initiated by the question and promote social solidarity are called ‘preferred responses,’ and those that block the action are ‘dispreferred responses.’ For example, accepting an invitation is preferred and rejecting it is dispreferred. These are not personal, psychological preferences but structural and social preferences. Preferred and dispreferred responses are generally formed differently. Preferred responses are given quickly and simply. Dispreferred responses are often delayed by silence and discourse markers such as ‘well,’ mitigated, and often include accounts.

The design of the question itself can also convey a preference for a certain type of answer. Linguistics call these questions “conducive” (Quirk et al. 1985). For example, the questions “Didn’t he arrive yet?” and “Do you really want to leave now?” seem to expect negative answers because of the negative polarity item ‘yet’ and the intensifier ‘really.’ The questions “Did someone call?” and “Hasn’t the boat left already?” seem to expect affirmative answers because of the positive polarity items ‘someone’ and ‘already.’ The design of an information-seeking question can also display the epistemic stance, or knowledge state, of the questioner relative to the recipient (Heritage 2012). Questions like “Are you married?” and “You’re married, aren’t you?” both display the questioner’s ‘unknowing’ state and the recipient’s ‘knowing state,’ but the latter question displays more knowledge.

Questions play an important role in institutional talk. According to Drew and Heritage (1992), question–answer sequences are the dominant form of interaction in institutional talk such as counseling interviews, medical interactions, broadcast news interviews (→ Broadcast Talk), survey interviews (→ Survey; Interview, Standardized), employment interviews, emergency calls, courtroom interactions, and pedagogical interactions (→ Educational Communication). Questions are used to enact institutional roles, with the professional often leading the layperson through a series of question-initiated sequences, creating interactional asymmetry. Questions are central to accomplishing institutional goals and are designed in special ways to meet those goals. Doctors use questions to elicit the patient’s history in medical examinations and to maintain control over the interaction (Drew & Heritage 1992). Broadcast news interviewers and courtroom attorneys ask questions to which they know the answer, designed for an overhearing audience, often containing propositions that support their views (Drew & Heritage 1992). Certain types of ‘known-information questions’ are identified with teaching. They initiate a sequence that ends with a third-turn evaluation of the student’s answer.

References and Suggested Readings

1. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.
2. Freed, A. F. & Ehrlich, S. (2010). “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 30–52.
4. Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
6. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.