One of the great advantages of qualitative methods is that they enhance the capacity not only to describe events but to understand how and why the same events are often interpreted in a different, sometimes even conflicting manner, by different individuals within the same field. 3.4 Naturalistic Inquiry The form of qualitative research, with roots in anthropology and sociology, is often ‘purest’ known as ethnography or naturalistic inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry most often involves a long-term exposure to a setting and/or a group of people (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Within this type of research, the investigator makes extensive use of unstructured observations as well as conversations, and this method of research is most likely to be used when the level of uncertainty is high or when we are unsure of what questions to ask or when there is little or no theory to direct our awareness, and when situations are novel or complex. However a drawback of this method is that within many settings, it can be impossible (or as near as makes no difference) to get sufficient exposure to a setting or a group without becoming a participant. It has been suggested that many ethnographers assert that it is impossible to understand the life experience of someone in a such as a ‘total institution,’ mental hospital, without not just spending a good deal of time in such an institution but also being subject to the same constraints as those who find themselves forced, by circumstance or the law, to be there. Nor would one be able to gain a fuller understanding of someone with mental illness in the community without spending long periods in their company thus one could assert the use of diaries and interviews would give a clearer and more accurate understanding of their lives. 3.5 Case study methods A more common set of qualitative methods are those used in case study research (e.g., Yin 1994). In virtually all instances, case studies use not only purposive sampling of sites, but purposive sampling of informants and experiences. The methods used in case study research are similar to those of naturalistic inquiry, except that data collection is typically more structured. The most common methods used are key informant interviews, structured observations of events and interactions, and the collection and content analysis of relevant documents. Interviews can vary from the unstructured to the highly structured, but the questions remain overwhelmingly open-ended. Typically, a list of questions is specified and there are ‘probes’ associated with certain questions.
One of the great advantages of qualitative methods is that they enhance the capacity not only to describe events but to understand how and why the same events are often interpreted in a different, sometimes even conflicting manner, by different individuals within the same field. 3.4 Naturalistic Inquiry The ‘purest’ form of qualitative research, with roots in anthropology and sociology, is often known as ethnography or naturalistic inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry most often involves a long-term exposure to a setting and/or a group of people (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Within this type of research, the investigator makes extensive use of unstructured observations as well as conversations, and this method of research is most likely to be used when the level of uncertainty is high or when we are unsure of what questions to ask or when there is little or no theory to direct our awareness, and when situations are novel or complex. However a drawback of this method is that within many settings, it can be impossible (or as near as makes no difference) to get sufficient exposure to a setting or a group without becoming a participant. It has been suggested that many ethnographers assert that it is impossible to understand the life experience of someone in a ‘total institution,’ such as a mental hospital, without not just spending a good deal of time in such an institution but also being subject to the same constraints as those who find themselves forced, by circumstance or the law, to be there. Nor would one be able to gain a fuller understanding of someone with mental illness in the community without spending long periods in their company thus one could assert the use of diaries and interviews would give a clearer and more accurate understanding of their lives. 3.5 Case study methods A more common set of qualitative methods are those used in case study research (e.g., Yin 1994). In virtually all instances, case studies use not only purposive sampling of sites, but purposive sampling of informants and experiences. The methods used in case study research are similar to those of naturalistic inquiry, except that data collection is typically more structured. The most common methods used are key informant interviews, structured observations of events and interactions, and the collection and content analysis of relevant documents. Interviews can vary from the unstructured to the highly structured, but the questions remain overwhelmingly open-ended. Typically, a list of questions is specified and there are ‘probes’ associated with certain questions.