I don’t know that much about conducting qualitative research. I know it’s the research option that avoids statistics, and therefore the option meant for me.
I’ve had some exposure to coding for qualitative research. The whole business looks like a formalized interview series, dismantled, then rebuilt for the academy.
I have a very positive view of it, because I don’t believe humans can be reduced to numbers. We’re too quirky a beast for that. I love the elegance of numbers, but I know firsthand that Likert scales can’t be trusted, because I am the person who creates charming patterns from any given survey’s answer field-dot-things. I don’t even read the questions unless there’s a weighty personal consequence (like an employment offer).
Qualitative research is interesting to me because its subjects get to speak for themselves. My biggest concern at this point is potential limitations of the researcher/interviewer. Do I have to stick to the questions approved through the IRB? As a journalist, I come to an interview with questions prepared, but they serve as a guide, not a gospel. My best questions spring spontaneously from the conversation. I have been told by trained journalists that I should control the arc of the interview, driving it where I want it to go. (Trained journalist is defined here as 1) majored in journalism; 2) worked at the Dallas Morning News at some point; 3) believes AP is “right” and Chicago is “wrong.” Writers are divided into two religions, detectable by feeling, love or hate, for the Oxford comma.) I don’t want to lead interview subjects, because they may try to please me rather than reveal themselves . . . . then we’re right back to the Likert scale.
Betsy Lewis Blog 