The No Name Method
Hello Qualitative Mind,
When I took my first qualitative course, I remember borrowing well-known textbooks from the library and finding multiple chapters on ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, case study and narrative description. However, I was convinced my Masters project did not fall under any of those methods and was desperate to name the method I was actually going to be doing.
Eventually I came across Margarete Sandelowski’s description of “Qualitative Description” and felt comfortable naming my method. I see many novice qualitative researchers in health disciplines as lost I once was, and somehow reluctant to name their method qualitative description because it does not seem to have the same prestige as grounded theory, phenomenology, etc. Well, I am here to tell you to let go of the limiting belief that qualitative description is not as worth or good as other qualitative methods because that is not true.
Well-done qualitative description produces incredible findings that tend to offer readers a comprehensive presentation of facts about a given phenomenon in a very accessible language. Yes, qualitative description is not as interpretive and heavy in theory as other qualitative methods but both interpretation and theory are also key aspects of qualitative description. Whenever a researcher or research team decide on the final categories that will describe their data, they are interpreting participants’ experiences and the phenomenon. It might be what I like to call low-key interpretation because it does not take hours of philosophical discussions and going back to the field but it is still interpretation.
The leeway that exists in qualitative description does not mean a lack of rigour. On the other hand, it means the onus is on the researcher to know the methods of data collection and analysis, as well as the strategies/steps that need to be taken to ensure data validity. If you are conducting qualitative description or suspect you are, I encourage you to read references listed below (including the Quali Q Guide to Qualitative Content Analysis as it is the most commonly used method of data analysis in qualitative description).
“There is nothing trivial or easy about getting the facts, and the meanings participants give to those facts, right and then conveying them in a coherent and useful manner.”
Suggested references:
Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, Sondergaard J. Qualitative description - the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:52.
Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-40.
Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77-84.
For my Masters I was doing my research in school settings, conducting interviews and observations and using qualitative content analysis. Eventually I nailed my method, and hope you will too.
Talk soon,
Maira