field experiment qualitative or quantitative

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

What is Field Research: Definition, Methods, Examples and Advantages

What is Field Research?

Field research is defined as a qualitative method of data collection that aims to observe, interact and understand people while they are in a natural environment. For example, nature conservationists observe behavior of animals in their natural surroundings and the way they react to certain scenarios. In the same way, social scientists conducting field research may conduct interviews or observe people from a distance to understand how they behave in a social environment and how they react to situations around them.

Learn more about: Market Research

Field research encompasses a diverse range of social research methods including direct observation, limited participation, analysis of documents and other information, informal interviews, surveys etc. Although field research is generally characterized as qualitative research, it often involves multiple aspects of quantitative research in it.

Field research typically begins in a specific setting although the end objective of the study is to observe and analyze the specific behavior of a subject in that setting. The cause and effect of a certain behavior, though, is tough to analyze due to presence of multiple variables in a natural environment. Most of the data collection is based not entirely on cause and effect but mostly on correlation. While field research looks for correlation, the small sample size makes it difficult to establish a causal relationship between two or more variables.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

Methods of Field Research

Field research is typically conducted in 5 distinctive methods. They are:

• Direct Observation

In this method, the data is collected via an observational method or subjects in a natural environment. In this method, the behavior or outcome of situation is not interfered in any way by the researcher. The advantage of direct observation is that it offers contextual data on people management , situations, interactions and the surroundings. This method of field research is widely used in a public setting or environment but not in a private environment as it raises an ethical dilemma.

• Participant Observation

In this method of field research, the researcher is deeply involved in the research process, not just purely as an observer, but also as a participant. This method too is conducted in a natural environment but the only difference is the researcher gets involved in the discussions and can mould the direction of the discussions. In this method, researchers live in a comfortable environment with the participants of the research design , to make them comfortable and open up to in-depth discussions.

• Ethnography

Ethnography is an expanded observation of social research and social perspective and the cultural values of an  entire social setting. In ethnography, entire communities are observed objectively. For example,  if a researcher would like to understand how an Amazon tribe lives their life and operates, he/she may chose to observe them or live amongst them and silently observe their day-to-day behavior.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Targeting

• Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews are close-ended questions that are asked directly to the research subjects. The qualitative interviews could be either informal and conversational, semi-structured, standardized and open-ended or a mix of all the above three. This provides a wealth of data to the researcher that they can sort through. This also helps collect relational data. This method of field research can use a mix of one-on-one interviews, focus groups and text analysis .

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

A case study research is an in-depth analysis of a person, situation or event. This method may look difficult to operate, however, it is one of the simplest ways of conducting research as it involves a deep dive and thorough understanding the data collection methods and inferring the data.

Steps in Conducting Field Research

Due to the nature of field research, the magnitude of timelines and costs involved, field research can be very tough to plan, implement and measure. Some basic steps in the management of field research are:

• Build the Right Team: To be able to conduct field research, having the right team is important. The role of the researcher and any ancillary team members is very important and defining the tasks they have to carry out with defined relevant milestones is important. It is important that the upper management too is vested in the field research for its success.
• Recruiting People for the Study: The success of the field research depends on the people that the study is being conducted on. Using sampling methods , it is important to derive the people that will be a part of the study.
• Data Collection Methodology: As spoken in length about above, data collection methods for field research are varied. They could be a mix of surveys, interviews, case studies and observation. All these methods have to be chalked out and the milestones for each method too have to be chalked out at the outset. For example, in the case of a survey, the survey design is important that it is created and tested even before the research begins.
• Site Visit: A site visit is important to the success of the field research and it is always conducted outside of traditional locations and in the actual natural environment of the respondent/s. Hence, planning a site visit alongwith the methods of data collection is important.
• Data Analysis: Analysis of the data that is collected is important to validate the premise of the field research and  decide the outcome of the field research.
• Communicating Results: Once the data is analyzed, it is important to communicate the results to the stakeholders of the research so that it could be actioned upon.

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

Field Research Notes

Keeping an ethnographic record is very important in conducting field research. Field notes make up one of the most important aspects of the ethnographic record. The process of field notes begins as the researcher is involved in the observational research process that is to be written down later.

Types of Field Research Notes

The four different kinds of field notes are:

• Job Notes: This method of taking notes is while the researcher is in the study. This could be in close proximity and in open sight with the subject in study. The notes here are short, concise and in condensed form that can be built on by the researcher later. Most researchers do not prefer this method though due to the fear of feeling that the respondent may not take them seriously.
• Field Notes Proper: These notes are to be expanded on immediately after the completion of events. The notes have to be detailed and the words have to be as close to possible as the subject being studied.
• Methodological Notes: These notes contain methods on the research methods used by the researcher, any new proposed research methods and the way to monitor their progress. Methodological notes can be kept with field notes or filed separately but they find their way to the end report of a study.
• Journals and Diaries: This method of field notes is an insight into the life of the researcher. This tracks all aspects of the researchers life and helps eliminate the Halo effect or any research bias that may have cropped up during the field research.

LEARN ABOUT: Causal Research

Reasons to Conduct Field Research

Field research has been commonly used in the 20th century in the social sciences. But in general, it takes a lot of time to conduct and complete, is expensive and in a lot of cases invasive. So why then is this commonly used and is preferred by researchers to validate data? We look at 4 major reasons:

• Overcoming lack of data: Field research resolves the major issue of gaps in data. Very often, there is limited to no data about a topic in study, especially in a specific environment analysis . The research problem might be known or suspected but there is no way to validate this without primary research and data. Conducting field research helps not only plug-in gaps in data but collect supporting material and hence is a preferred research method of researchers.
• Understanding context of the study: In many cases, the data collected is adequate but field research is still conducted. This helps gain insight into the existing data. For example, if the data states that horses from a stable farm generally win races because the horses are pedigreed and the stable owner hires the best jockeys. But conducting field research can throw light into other factors that influence the success like quality of fodder and care provided and conducive weather conditions.
• Increasing the quality of data: Since this research method uses more than one tool to collect data, the data is of higher quality. Inferences can be made from the data collected and can be statistically analyzed via the triangulation of data.
• Collecting ancillary data: Field research puts the researchers in a position of localized thinking which opens them new lines of thinking. This can help collect data that the study didn’t account to collect.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Research

Examples of Field Research

Some examples of field research are:

• Decipher social metrics in a slum Purely by using observational methods and in-depth interviews, researchers can be part of a community to understand the social metrics and social hierarchy of a slum. This study can also understand the financial independence and day-to-day operational nuances of a slum. The analysis of this data can provide an insight into how different a slum is from structured societies.
• U nderstand the impact of sports on a child’s development This method of field research takes multiple years to conduct and the sample size can be very large. The data analysis of this research provides insights into how the kids of different geographical locations and backgrounds respond to sports and the impact of sports on their all round development.
• Study animal migration patterns Field research is used extensively to study flora and fauna. A major use case is scientists monitoring and studying animal migration patterns with the change of seasons. Field research helps collect data across years and that helps draw conclusions about how to safely expedite the safe passage of animals.

LEARN ABOUT:  Social Communication Questionnaire

Advantages of Field Research

The advantages of field research are:

• It is conducted in a real-world and natural environment where there is no tampering of variables and the environment is not doctored.
• Due to the study being conducted in a comfortable environment, data can be collected even about ancillary topics.
• The researcher gains a deep understanding into the research subjects due to the proximity to them and hence the research is extensive, thorough and accurate.

Disadvantages of Field Research

The disadvantages of field research are:

• The studies are expensive and time-consuming and can take years to complete.
• It is very difficult for the researcher to distance themselves from a bias in the research study.
• The notes have to be exactly what the researcher says but the nomenclature is very tough to follow.
• It is an interpretive method and this is subjective and entirely dependent on the ability of the researcher.
• In this method, it is impossible to control external variables and this constantly alters the nature of the research.

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

MORE LIKE THIS

Experimental vs Observational Studies: Differences & Examples

Sep 5, 2024

Interactive Forms: Key Features, Benefits, Uses + Design Tips

Sep 4, 2024

Closed-Loop Management: The Key to Customer Centricity

Sep 3, 2024

Net Trust Score: Tool for Measuring Trust in Organization

Sep 2, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Published on April 12, 2019 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on June 22, 2023.

When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge.

Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions.

Quantitative research is at risk for research biases including information bias , omitted variable bias , sampling bias , or selection bias . Qualitative research Qualitative research is expressed in words . It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences. This type of research enables you to gather in-depth insights on topics that are not well understood.

Common qualitative methods include interviews with open-ended questions, observations described in words, and literature reviews that explore concepts and theories.

Table of contents

The differences between quantitative and qualitative research, data collection methods, when to use qualitative vs. quantitative research, how to analyze qualitative and quantitative data, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research.

Quantitative and qualitative research use different research methods to collect and analyze data, and they allow you to answer different kinds of research questions.

Quantitative and qualitative data can be collected using various methods. It is important to use a data collection method that will help answer your research question(s).

Many data collection methods can be either qualitative or quantitative. For example, in surveys, observational studies or case studies , your data can be represented as numbers (e.g., using rating scales or counting frequencies) or as words (e.g., with open-ended questions or descriptions of what you observe).

However, some methods are more commonly used in one type or the other.

Quantitative data collection methods

• Surveys :  List of closed or multiple choice questions that is distributed to a sample (online, in person, or over the phone).
• Experiments : Situation in which different types of variables are controlled and manipulated to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
• Observations : Observing subjects in a natural environment where variables can’t be controlled.

Qualitative data collection methods

• Interviews : Asking open-ended questions verbally to respondents.
• Focus groups : Discussion among a group of people about a topic to gather opinions that can be used for further research.
• Ethnography : Participating in a community or organization for an extended period of time to closely observe culture and behavior.
• Literature review : Survey of published works by other authors.

A rule of thumb for deciding whether to use qualitative or quantitative data is:

• Use quantitative research if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis )
• Use qualitative research if you want to understand something (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

For most research topics you can choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach . Which type you choose depends on, among other things, whether you’re taking an inductive vs. deductive research approach ; your research question(s) ; whether you’re doing experimental , correlational , or descriptive research ; and practical considerations such as time, money, availability of data, and access to respondents.

Quantitative research approach

You survey 300 students at your university and ask them questions such as: “on a scale from 1-5, how satisfied are your with your professors?”

You can perform statistical analysis on the data and draw conclusions such as: “on average students rated their professors 4.4”.

Qualitative research approach

You conduct in-depth interviews with 15 students and ask them open-ended questions such as: “How satisfied are you with your studies?”, “What is the most positive aspect of your study program?” and “What can be done to improve the study program?”

Based on the answers you get you can ask follow-up questions to clarify things. You transcribe all interviews using transcription software and try to find commonalities and patterns.

Mixed methods approach

You conduct interviews to find out how satisfied students are with their studies. Through open-ended questions you learn things you never thought about before and gain new insights. Later, you use a survey to test these insights on a larger scale.

It’s also possible to start with a survey to find out the overall trends, followed by interviews to better understand the reasons behind the trends.

Qualitative or quantitative data by itself can’t prove or demonstrate anything, but has to be analyzed to show its meaning in relation to the research questions. The method of analysis differs for each type of data.

Analyzing quantitative data

Quantitative data is based on numbers. Simple math or more advanced statistical analysis is used to discover commonalities or patterns in the data. The results are often reported in graphs and tables.

Applications such as Excel, SPSS, or R can be used to calculate things like:

• Average scores ( means )
• The number of times a particular answer was given
• The correlation or causation between two or more variables
• The reliability and validity of the results

Analyzing qualitative data

Qualitative data is more difficult to analyze than quantitative data. It consists of text, images or videos instead of numbers.

Some common approaches to analyzing qualitative data include:

• Qualitative content analysis : Tracking the occurrence, position and meaning of words or phrases
• Thematic analysis : Closely examining the data to identify the main themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying how communication works in social contexts

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, June 22). Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-quantitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, mixed methods research | definition, guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Search form

You are here.

Field Research: What Is It and When to Use It?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Define field research.
• Define participant observation and describe the continuum of participant observation.
• Discuss at least two examples of field research.

There’s a New Yorker cartoon that pretty accurately portrays life for a field researcher (Cotham, 2003). 1 It depicts “Two Barbarians and a Professor of Barbarian Studies.” As field researchers, just as in the cartoon, we immerse ourselves in the settings that we study. While the extent to which we immerse ourselves varies (note in the cartoon the professor is riding a horse but has chosen to retain his professorial jacket and pipe), what all field researchers have in common is their participation in “the field.”

Field research is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. Thus when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they’re talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. In this text, we’ll use two main terms: field research and participant observation . You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate, they observe, they usually interview some of the people they observe, and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.

Because we cover interviews and document/artifact analysis in " Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches " and " Unobtrusive Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches ", here we’ll focus only on the participation and observation aspects of field research. These aspects of field research are usually referenced together and are known as participant observation . Like field research, participant observation also has multiple meanings. Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe (Junker, 1960). 2 You might say that there’s a continuum of participant observation, where complete observation lies at end of the continuum and complete participation lies at the other end.

In other chapters, we discuss two works that could fall on either end of the participant observation continuum. Barrie Thorne’s (1993) 3 observations of children in classrooms, school cafeterias, hallways, and playgrounds rest near the complete observation end of the continuum. Rather than actually pretending to be an elementary school student and interacting with her research participants as they would each other, Thorne observed (which, as discussed in " Beginning a Research Project ", was probably a wise move since it would have been difficult to convince the students that she was one of them). Laud Humphreys’s (1970) 4 research on the tearoom trade, described in " Research Ethics ", could be said to rest on the other end of the continuum. Rather than only observe, Humphreys played the key tearoom role of watch queen, a role that nonresearcher participants in the trade also played. Humphreys also did not tell many of the people he observed that he was a researcher; thus from the perspectives of many of his “subjects,” he was only a participant. The participant observation continuum is represented in “ Figure 10.2 ”.

There are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant observer’s role. Complete observers may miss important aspects of group interaction and don’t have the opportunity to fully grasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant them opportunities to see interactions that they would miss were they more involved. Complete participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that we investigate. On the other hand, complete participants may find themselves in situations that they’d rather not face but cannot excuse themselves from because they’ve adopted the role of complete participant. Also, complete participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their “subjects.” In reality, most field research projects lie somewhere near the middle of the observer-participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may just observe. Where would you feel most comfortable as a field researcher—as an observer, a participant, or a bit of both?

As you might have imagined based on the examples of Thorne’s and Humphreys’s work, field research is well equipped to answer “how” kinds of questions. Whereas survey researchers often aim to answer “why” questions, field researchers ask how the processes they study occur, how the people they spend time with in the field interact, and how events unfold. " Table 10.1 " presents just a few examples of the kinds of questions field researchers have asked in past projects along with a brief summary of where and what role those researchers took in the field. The examples presented in " Table 10.1 " by no means represent an exhaustive list of the variations of questions field researchers have asked or of the range of field research projects that have been conducted over the years, but they do provide a snapshot of the kinds of work sociological field researchers engage in.

Field research is a method that was originally crafted by anthropologists for the purpose of cultural understanding and interpretation (Wolcott, 2008). 12 Dissatisfied with studying groups of people based solely on secondhand accounts and inspection of artifacts, several anthropologists decided to try living in or near the communities they studied to learn from and about them. Two anthropologists in particular, Franz Boas (1888) 13 and Bronislaw Malinowski (1922), 14 are credited with developing this method around the turn of the 20th century. Boas lived with native populations in Canada and in the American Northwest. Malinowski lived in Papua New Guinea with people who were native to the area. Sociologists picked up on the idea and on the benefits of field research (which we’ll examine in " Pros and Cons of Field Research "). Soon a number of sociologists had embraced this new method and adapted field research for their own studies of groups. Many of the early field researchers in sociology were former social workers who got interested in sociological research because of experiences in their roles as social reformers. The University of Chicago in particular played a key role in the development of American field research through, among other projects, its involvement in Hull House, 15 a social settlement founded for European immigrants in Chicago (Deegan, 1986). 16

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis.
• Different participant observation projects rest in different places on the continuum of complete observer to complete participant; most lie near the middle of the continuum.
• Field research has its origins in anthropology.
• As a preview to some of the pros, cons, joys, and frustrations of doing field research, watch the following clip, which shows “news” personality Stephen Colbert interviewing sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh 17 about his field research in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/156631/march-13-2008/sudhir-venkatesh . The clip highlights some of the advantages field research has over survey interviewing; it also highlights some of the disadvantages of field research. Based on what you see in the clip, what are some of the main advantages of field research as compared to survey interviewing? What are some of the main disadvantages?
• If you would like to learn more about William Foote Whyte’s groundbreaking field research, a 40-minute interview with Whyte and several of his research participants, conducted nearly 40 years after the publication of Street Corner Society , can be found at the following link: http://www.northendwaterfront.com/home/2010/6/18/street-corner-society-video-of-william-foote-whyte-north-end.html . What role did Whyte play in the field: complete observer, complete participant, or something in between? Use evidence from the interview to support your answer. What pros and cons of field research come up in the interview?
• Where do you think is the best place to reside on the observer-participant continuum? Why? What are the pros and cons of each of the various places on the continuum?
• Relevance, Balance, and Accessibility
• Different Sources of Knowledge
• Ontology and Epistemology KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• The Science of Sociology
• Specific Considerations for the Social Sciences KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Consuming Research and Living With Its Results
• Research as Employment Opportunity KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Design and Goals of This Text LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Sociology at Three Different Levels KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Paradigms in Social Science
• Sociological Theories KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Inductive Approaches and Some Examples
• Deductive Approaches and Some Examples
• Complementary Approaches? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Revisiting an Earlier Question LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Human Research Versus Nonhuman Research
• A Historical Look at Research on Humans
• Institutional Review Boards KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Informed Consent
• Protection of Identities
• Disciplinary Considerations KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Ethics at Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Doing Science the Ethical Way
• Using Science the Ethical Way KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• How Do You Feel About Where You Already Are?
• What Do You Know About Where You Already Are? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Is It Empirical? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is Sociology?
• What Is Not Sociology? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Sociologists as Paparazzi?
• Some Specific Examples KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Feasibility
• Field Trip: Visit Your Library KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Exploration, Description, Explanation
• Idiographic or Nomothetic?
• Applied or Basic? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Units of Analysis and Units of Observation
• Hypotheses KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Triangulation LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Searching for Literature
• Reviewing the Literature
• Additional Important Components KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Do Social Scientists Measure?
• How Do Social Scientists Measure? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Concepts and Conceptualization
• A Word of Caution About Conceptualization KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Putting It All Together KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Reliability
• Validity KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Levels of Measurement
• Indexes, Scales, and Typologies KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Populations Versus Samples LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Nonprobability Sampling
• Types of Nonprobability Samples KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Probability Sampling
• Types of Probability Samples KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Who Sampled, How Sampled, and for What Purpose? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Survey Research: What Is It and When Should It Be Used? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Strengths of Survey Method
• Weaknesses of Survey Method KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Administration KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Asking Effective Questions
• Response Options
• Designing Questionnaires KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• From Completed Questionnaires to Analyzable Data
• Identifying Patterns KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Interview Research: What Is It and When Should It Be Used? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Conducting Qualitative Interviews
• Analysis of Qualitative Interview Data
• Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Conducting Quantitative Interviews
• Analysis of Quantitative Interview Data
• Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Interviews KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Location, Location, Location
• Researcher-Respondent Relationship KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Field Research: What Is It and When to Use It? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Strengths of Field Research
• Weaknesses of Field Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Choosing a Site
• Choosing a Role KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Writing in the Field
• Writing out of the Field KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• From Description to Analysis KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Unobtrusive Research: What Is It and When to Use It? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Strengths of Unobtrusive Research
• Weaknesses of Unobtrusive Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Content Analysis
• Indirect Measures
• Analysis of Unobtrusive Data Collected by You KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Analyzing Others’ Data LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Reliability in Unobtrusive Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Focus Groups LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Experiments LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Sharing It All: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
• Knowing Your Audience KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Presenting Your Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Writing Up Research Results LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Disseminating Findings LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Reading Reports of Sociological Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Being a Responsible Consumer of Research LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Media Reports of Sociological Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Sociological Research: It’s Everywhere LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Evaluation Research
• Market Research
• Policy and Other Government Research KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Doing Research for a Cause LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Public Sociology LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Transferable Skills
• Understanding Yourself, Your Circumstances, and Your World KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
•  Back Matter

This action cannot be undo.

Choose a delete action Empty this page Remove this page and its subpages

Content is out of sync. You must reload the page to continue.

New page type Book Topic Interactive Learning Content

• Config Page
• Add Page Before
• Add Page After
• Delete Page

Project Enquiry

We Can Help You With Your Ideas, Challenges & Ambitions!!

Want to be part of Octet design Studio?

Jul 11, 2024

What is field research? Meaning, methods, and examples

Insights • Aakash Jethwani • 11 Mins reading time

In the realm of research methodologies, field study, often called field research, stands out as a pivotal approach to understanding real-world phenomena through direct observation and interaction within natural settings. 

Unlike controlled experiments, it captures genuine behaviors and social interactions, providing rich and detailed insights. Field research offers a firsthand look at reality, whether you’re exploring cultural traditions, studying social issues, or understanding consumer habits. 

For businesses, this method is invaluable for improving product design, enhancing usability, and making informed decisions based on real-life data. 

Let’s start with this blog to explore field research meaning and significance and provide field research examples to illustrate its diverse applications.

Field research meaning

Field research encompasses the systematic study conducted outside controlled environments, where researchers directly engage with subjects in their natural contexts. It involves observation, interaction, and data collection in real-world settings, aiming to capture user behaviors, interactions, and phenomena as they naturally occur. 

Unlike experiments conducted in artificial setups, field study enables researchers to explore and understand the complexities of human societies, wildlife habitats, consumer behaviors, and cultural practices within their natural environments. 

This methodological approach provides rich, contextual insights that contribute to a deeper understanding of various disciplines and phenomena, enhancing the validity and applicability of research findings in practical and real-world contexts. 

Let’s look at some field research examples to understand this concept better.

Field research examples

1. study of indigenous tribes.

Researchers visit and live among indigenous communities to study their cultures, traditions, languages, and social structures firsthand. 

They observe daily life, participate in rituals and activities, and conduct interviews to understand how these communities function and interact with the surrounding environment.

2. Urban ethnography

This involves studying people’s behaviors, interactions, and cultures in urban settings like cities or neighborhoods. 

Researchers immerse themselves in these environments to observe social dynamics, community relationships, and cultural practices unique to urban life. This helps them understand how urban societies work and evolve.

3. Wildlife tracking

Researchers use various techniques, such as GPS collars, camera traps, and direct observation, to track and study animals in their natural habitats. 

The behaviors of wildlife, migration patterns, preferred habitats, and the effects of environmental changes on animal populations are all better understood by researchers because of this fieldwork.

4. Consumer behavior studies

Researchers conduct field research in shopping malls, retail stores, or online platforms to observe and analyze consumer behavior. 

They study how people make purchasing decisions, their preferences for products or services, and their overall shopping experiences. This research is crucial for businesses to understand market trends and consumer needs.

5. Usability testing in context

This involves testing the usability of products or services in real-world settings where they are used. Researchers observe how users interact with devices, software, websites, or apps to identify usability issues, user preferences, and areas for improvement. 

Usability testing in context provides insights into how well products meet user needs and expectations in their everyday environments.

You may like to read about the difference between field studies vs ethnographic studies vs contextual inquiry

Reasons for conducting a field study

Field study is essential for gaining deep insights and understanding across various disciplines due to several key reasons:

1. Contextual understanding

Field research allows researchers to study phenomena in their natural environments, providing a contextual understanding beyond controlled settings. It lets them observe how environment, culture, and social dynamics influence behaviors and outcomes. 

For example, studying how people interact in their neighborhoods gives insights that might be missed in a lab.

2. Behavioral insights

Field research yields authentic and nuanced behavioral insights by observing behaviors directly in real-world settings. Researchers can see how people react in specific situations, which helps them understand decision-making processes, habits, and responses to stimuli. 

This direct observation is crucial for developing theories that accurately reflect real-life behaviors.

3. Cultural and social insights

Field research is invaluable for studying cultural practices, traditions, and social structures within natural contexts. It provides opportunities to immerse in diverse communities and understand their values, rituals, and daily lives. 

This field research fosters cultural sensitivity and enhances understanding of societal norms, helping researchers appreciate and respect cultural diversity.

4. Exploratory research

Field research often serves as exploratory research, where researchers explore new phenomena or test hypotheses in real-world settings. It allows for flexible and adaptive methods to uncover unexpected findings or patterns that might not be apparent in theoretical frameworks alone. 

This exploratory nature of field research contributes to expanding knowledge and generating new ideas.

5. Intervention and application

Field research also plays a crucial role in applied research and interventions. By studying problems or challenges in situ, researchers can develop and test practical solutions tailored to specific contexts. 

This approach ensures that interventions are relevant, practical, and feasible, addressing real-world issues directly.

Also, read why field research is needed across different disciplines

When is field research conducted?

Field research is conducted across diverse contexts and disciplines to explore, describe, evaluate, and monitor phenomena in their natural settings. It provides invaluable insights into real-world complexities and behaviors.

1. Exploratory studies

Field research is often conducted in exploratory studies when researchers aim to investigate new phenomena or explore unfamiliar topics. 

By immersing themselves in the field, researchers gather preliminary data and insights that help formulate hypotheses or refine research questions for further study.

2. Descriptive studies

In descriptive studies, field research describes and documents specific behaviors, characteristics, or phenomena in their natural settings. 

Researchers observe and record details without manipulating variables, aiming to comprehensively understand what exists and how it functions in real-world contexts.

3. Evaluation and monitoring

Field research is crucial for evaluating programs, policies, or interventions implemented in real-world settings. Researchers conduct ongoing monitoring to assess outcomes, measure impacts, and identify areas for improvement. 

This type of research helps stakeholders make informed decisions based on empirical data and feedback from the field.

4. Longitudinal studies

Longitudinal studies involve observing subjects over extended periods, sometimes years or decades, to track changes or developments over time. 

Field research in longitudinal studies allows researchers to capture evolving behaviors, trends, and influences within natural environments, providing insights into developmental trajectories or long-term effects.

5. Cross-cultural comparisons

Field research is essential for cross-cultural comparisons to understand how behaviors, beliefs, or social practices vary across different cultures or geographical regions. 

Researchers collect data from multiple cultural contexts, comparing similarities, differences, and underlying factors that shape cultural variations.

Types of field research

Field research encompasses various methodologies tailored to different research objectives and data collection approaches:

1. Qualitative field research

This type of field research focuses on understanding phenomena through in-depth exploration and interpretation of experiences, behaviors, and social interactions within natural settings. 

Researchers use participant observation, interviews, and open-ended surveys to gather rich, descriptive data. This approach emphasizes capturing meanings, perceptions, and contextual factors that shape individuals’ experiences and behaviors.

2. Quantitative field research

Quantitative field research involves collecting numerical data and analyzing it statistically to identify patterns, relationships, and trends. Researchers use structured surveys, experiments, or systematic observations to gather data from large samples in real-world environments. 

This approach emphasizes measurement, objectivity, and generalizability of findings, allowing researchers to draw statistically valid conclusions about populations or phenomena.

3. Mixed methods field research

Mixed methods is a type of field research that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to leverage their strengths and comprehensively understand complex phenomena. Researchers integrate data collection methods and analyses to triangulate findings, enhancing the validity and depth of research outcomes. 

This method gives researchers a more comprehensive understanding of research issues by enabling them to capture both the depth of qualitative insights and the breadth of quantitative data.

Field research methods

The field research methods employ various ways to collect data and gain insights directly from natural settings:

1. Participant observation

Researchers immerse themselves in the studied environment, actively participating in activities and observing behaviors firsthand. With this approach, social interactions, user behaviors, and cultural customs can be thoroughly understood in natural settings.

2. Interviews and focus groups

Researchers conduct structured or semi-structured interviews with individuals or facilitate group discussions in focus groups. These methods gather qualitative data through direct interaction, probing questions, and group dynamics, offering insights into attitudes, perceptions, and experiences.

3. Surveys and questionnaires

This type of field study method collects large quantitative data from respondents. Researchers design structured instruments to gather information on attitudes, behaviors, preferences, or demographics, providing statistical insights into population patterns and trends.

4. Document analysis

Researchers analyze written or recorded materials relevant to the research topic, such as texts, reports, archives, or multimedia sources. Document analysis uncovers historical context, policy documents, organizational records, or cultural artifacts, offering valuable insights into trends, perspectives, and changes over time.

5. Sampling techniques

This technique selects a representative subset of the population for study. Researchers use methods such as random, stratified, or purposive sampling to ensure the sample reflects the diversity and characteristics of the larger population, enhancing the generalizability of findings.

6. Field experiments

Researchers carry out controlled experiments in natural environments to change variables and track their impact on relevant outcomes. Field experiments allow researchers to study cause-and-effect relationships in real-world conditions, providing empirical evidence to test hypotheses and inform practical applications.

Steps to conduct a field study

Conducting a field study involves several systematic steps to ensure rigorous research and meaningful findings:

1. Define research objectives

Define the objective and goal of the study, outlining what you aim to achieve and the questions you seek to answer through your research in the field.

2. Literature review

Conduct a thorough examination of existing literature on your research topic. This will assist you in identifying knowledge gaps, understanding theoretical frameworks, and guiding your research design and methods.

3. Research design

Develop a research design that aligns with your objectives and chosen methodology (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Decide on data collection methods, sampling strategies, and experimental or observational techniques.

4. Obtain permissions and clearances

Obtain necessary permissions and clearances from relevant authorities or stakeholders, especially if your study involves human subjects, sensitive environments, or requires access to restricted areas.

5. Prepare data collection tools

Design and prepare data collection tools, such as interview guides, survey questionnaires, observation protocols, or experimental setups. Ensure these tools are valid, reliable, and appropriate for your research context.

6. Pilot testing

Launch a pilot test of your data collection tools and procedures to identify and address any practical issues, refine questions, and ensure the effectiveness of your approach before full-scale implementation.

7. Data collection

Collect data according to your planned methodology and procedures. This may involve conducting interviews, administering surveys, observing behaviors, or performing experiments in the field setting.

8. Data analysis

Examine the collected data using appropriate analytical techniques. This may involve coding, thematic analysis, or narrative interpretation for qualitative data. Using statistical methods to analyze patterns, relationships, and trends for quantitative data.

9. Validation and triangulation

Validate your findings by comparing and contrasting data from different sources or methods (triangulation). This helps to ensure the reliability and credibility of your results by corroborating evidence across multiple perspectives.

10. Report and dissemination

Compile your findings into a comprehensive report with an introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. Communicate your findings, implications, and recommendations for future research or practical applications.

In conclusion, understanding field research meaning is essential for understanding real-world user needs and informing the design of effective, user-centered solutions. By immersing themselves in the natural environment, researchers can gain invaluable insights that may not be captured through other methods. 

At Octet , our experienced field researchers leverage various field research methods to uncover these insights, which we then translate into actionable recommendations to drive innovation and foster deeper connections between products/services and users. 

By partnering with Octet, you can harness the power of field research to create solutions that truly resonate with your target audience.

1. Why is field study important?

Field research is essential because it allows researchers to gain a deep, contextual understanding of real-world user needs and behaviors. 

By immersing themselves in the natural environment, researchers can uncover insights that may not be captured through other research methods, such as surveys or lab studies. 

These insights can inform the design process, leading to more effective, user-centered solutions that resonate with the target audience.

2. What is the objective of the field study?

The primary objective of field research is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the user’s environment, experiences, and pain points. 

Through the observation of users in their natural environments, researchers are able to determine the fundamental aspects that impact their decisions and behaviors. 

This information can then guide the design and development of products, services, or interventions more appropriate for the target population.

3. What do you mean by field of study?

The term “field of study” refers to the specific academic or professional discipline in which field research is conducted. 

This can include various fields, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, marketing, product design, or human-computer interaction. 

The field of study determines the research methods, theoretical frameworks, and analytical approaches used to collect and interpret the data gathered through field research.

Read more on:

What is cognitive walkthrough? Methods and examples

What is contextual inquiry? Definition and example

What is participatory design? Learn how to conduct it

Aakash Jethwani

Consulting Enterprise and SaaS Tech Companies

A design leader known for creating and offering pixel-perfect design by striking a balance between design and technology to his clients while also managing his team and business.

Inspire the next generation of designers

Related blogs, benefits of ui ux design: how it transforms user experience.

Reading Time: 9 minutes In the dynamic world of digital interactions, UI/UX design stands as the backbone of creating meaningful and seamless experiences for users.  Whether you’re a seasoned designer or just stepping into the realm of UI/UX, understanding the advantages of UI/UX Design and benefits of user experience design can significantly impact your approach to crafting interfaces that […]

Dec 28, 2023 • By Aakash Jethwani

Essential UI UX design tips for outstanding UX experiences

Reading Time: 9 minutes In the rapidly changing digital landscape, UI/UX Design holds unparalleled importance. Its significance lies in crafting experiences that resonate with users, ensuring their satisfaction and loyalty. A meticulously designed UI/UX becomes a secret weapon in the competitive tech space, setting a product apart from the crowd.  Beyond aesthetics, it plays a pivotal role in increasing […]

Dec 27, 2023 • By Aakash Jethwani

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 23 March 2022

Embracing field studies as a tool for learning

• Jon M. Jachimowicz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1197-8958 1  

Nature Reviews Psychology volume  1 ,  pages 249–250 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

237 Accesses

4 Citations

29 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour
• Social sciences

Field studies in social psychology tend to focus on validating existing insights. In addition to learning from the laboratory and bringing those insights to the field — which researchers currently favour — we should also conduct field studies that aim to learn in the field first.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

What Can Educational Psychology Learn From, and Contribute to, Theory Development Scholarship?

• Jeffrey A. Greene

Educational Psychology Review Open Access 23 May 2022

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

55,14 € per year

only 4,60 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Premachandra, B. & Lewis, N. A. Jr. Do we report the information that is necessary to give psychology away? a scoping review of the psychological intervention literature 2000–2018. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 226–238 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Milkman, K. L. et al. Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature 600 , 478–483 (2021).

IJzerman, H. et al. Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 1092–1094 (2020).

Vazire, S. Implications of the credibility revolution for productivity, creativity, and progress. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13 , 411–417 (2018).

Chatman, J. A. & Flynn, F. J. Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research. Organ. Sci. 16 , 434–447 (2005).

Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 , 532–550 (1989).

Ranganathan, A. The artisan and his audience: identification with work and price setting in a handicraft cluster in southern india. Adm. Sci. Q. 63 , 637–667 (2018).

Jachimowicz, J. The study premortem: why publishing null results is only the first step. Behavioral Scientist , https://go.nature.com/3KONKNt (16 October 2018).

Whillans, A. & West, C. Alleviating time poverty among the working poor: a pre-registered longitudinal field experiment. Sci. Rep. 12 , 719 (2022).

Perlow, L. A. The time famine: toward a sociology of work time. Adm. Sci. Q. 44 , 57–81 (1999).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Z. Berry, M. Gorges, O. Hauser, K. Krautter, J. Murray, C. Vinluan and A. Whillans for their excellent comments on an earlier version of this Comment

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

Jon M. Jachimowicz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon M. Jachimowicz .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jachimowicz, J.M. Embracing field studies as a tool for learning. Nat Rev Psychol 1 , 249–250 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00047-x

Download citation

Published : 23 March 2022

Issue Date : May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00047-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Educational Psychology Review (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Chapter 10 Field Research: A Qualitative Technique

Why field research.

If we wanted to know who conducts more of the housework in households, how could we find the answer? One way might be to interview people and simply ask them. That is exactly what Arlie Hochschild did in her study of the second shift , her term for the work that goes on in the home after the day’s work for pay is completed. Hochschild (1989) Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home (1st ed.). New York, NY: Viking. interviewed 50 heterosexual, married couples with children to learn about how they did, or did not, share the work of the second shift. Many of these couples reported to her that they shared the load of the second shift equally, sometimes dividing the house into areas that were “her responsibility” and those that were “his.” But Hochschild wasn’t satisfied with just people’s personal accounts of second-shift work. She chose to observe 12 of these couples in their homes as well, to see for herself just how the second shift was shared.

What Hochschild discovered was that even those couples who claimed to share the second shift did not have as equitable a division of duties as they’d professed. For example, one couple who told Hochschild during their interview that they shared the household work equally had explained that the wife was responsible for the upstairs portion of the house and the husband took responsibility for the downstairs portion. Upon conducting observations in this couple’s home, however, Hochschild discovered that the upstairs portion of the house contained all the bedrooms and bathrooms, the kitchen, the dining room, and the living room, while the downstairs included a storage space and the garage. This division of labor meant that the woman actually carried the weight of responsibility for the second shift. Without a field research component to her study, Hochschild might never have uncovered these and other truths about couples’ behaviors and sharing (or not sharing) of household duties.

10.1 Field Research: What Is It and When to Use It?

Learning objectives.

• Define field research.
• Define participant observation and describe the continuum of participant observation.
• Discuss at least two examples of field research.

There’s a New Yorker cartoon that pretty accurately portrays life for a field researcher (Cotham, 2003). Cotham, F. (2003, September 1). Two barbarians and a professor of barbarian studies. The New Yorker . Retrieved from http://www.cartoonbank.com/2003/two-barbarians-and-a-professor-of-barbarian-studies/invt/126562 It depicts “Two Barbarians and a Professor of Barbarian Studies.” As field researchers, just as in the cartoon, we immerse ourselves in the settings that we study. While the extent to which we immerse ourselves varies (note in the cartoon the professor is riding a horse but has chosen to retain his professorial jacket and pipe), what all field researchers have in common is their participation in “the field.”

Field research A qualitative method of data collection that involves observing, interacting with, and interviewing people in their natural settings. is a qualitative method of data collection aimed at understanding, observing, and interacting with people in their natural settings. Thus when social scientists talk about being in “the field,” they’re talking about being out in the real world and involved in the everyday lives of the people they are studying. Sometimes researchers use the terms ethnography or participant observation to refer to this method of data collection; the former is most commonly used in anthropology, while the latter is used commonly in sociology. In this text, we’ll use two main terms: field research and participant observation . You might think of field research as an umbrella term that includes the myriad activities that field researchers engage in when they collect data: they participate, they observe, they usually interview some of the people they observe, and they typically analyze documents or artifacts created by the people they observe.

Figure 10.2

Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis. This chapter focuses primarily on participant observation.

Because we cover interviews and document/artifact analysis in Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" and Chapter 11 "Unobtrusive Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" , here we’ll focus only on the participation and observation aspects of field research. These aspects of field research are usually referenced together and are known as participant observation The parts of field research that involve spending time with and watching one’s research participants; interviewing and document/artifact analysis are the other two components of field research. . Like field research, participant observation also has multiple meanings. Researchers conducting participant observation vary in the extent to which they participate or observe (Junker, 1960). Junker, B. H. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. You might say that there’s a continuum of participant observation, where complete observation lies at end of the continuum and complete participation lies at the other end.

In other chapters, we discuss two works that could fall on either end of the participant observation continuum. Barrie Thorne’s (1993) Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. observations of children in classrooms, school cafeterias, hallways, and playgrounds rest near the complete observation end of the continuum. Rather than actually pretending to be an elementary school student and interacting with her research participants as they would each other, Thorne observed (which, as discussed in Chapter 4 "Beginning a Research Project" , was probably a wise move since it would have been difficult to convince the students that she was one of them). Laud Humphreys’s (1970) Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places . London, UK: Duckworth. research on the tearoom trade, described in Chapter 3 "Research Ethics" , could be said to rest on the other end of the continuum. Rather than only observe, Humphreys played the key tearoom role of watch queen, a role that nonresearcher participants in the trade also played. Humphreys also did not tell many of the people he observed that he was a researcher; thus from the perspectives of many of his “subjects,” he was only a participant. The participant observation continuum is represented in Figure 10.3 .

There are pros and cons associated with both aspects of the participant observer’s role. Complete observers may miss important aspects of group interaction and don’t have the opportunity to fully grasp what life is like for the people they observe. At the same time, sitting back and observing may grant them opportunities to see interactions that they would miss were they more involved. Complete participation has the benefit of allowing researchers a real taste of life in the group that they study. Some argue that participation is the only way to understand what it is that we investigate. On the other hand, complete participants may find themselves in situations that they’d rather not face but cannot excuse themselves from because they’ve adopted the role of complete participant. Also, complete participants who do not reveal themselves as researchers must face the ethical quandary of possibly deceiving their “subjects.” In reality, most field research projects lie somewhere near the middle of the observer-participant continuum. Field researchers typically participate to at least some extent in their field sites, but there are also times when they may just observe. Where would you feel most comfortable as a field researcher—as an observer, a participant, or a bit of both?

As you might have imagined based on the examples of Thorne’s and Humphreys’s work, field research is well equipped to answer “how” kinds of questions. Whereas survey researchers often aim to answer “why” questions, field researchers ask how the processes they study occur, how the people they spend time with in the field interact, and how events unfold. Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" presents just a few examples of the kinds of questions field researchers have asked in past projects along with a brief summary of where and what role those researchers took in the field. The examples presented in Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" by no means represent an exhaustive list of the variations of questions field researchers have asked or of the range of field research projects that have been conducted over the years, but they do provide a snapshot of the kinds of work sociological field researchers engage in.

Table 10.1 Field Research Examples

Field research is a method that was originally crafted by anthropologists for the purpose of cultural understanding and interpretation (Wolcott, 2008). Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Dissatisfied with studying groups of people based solely on secondhand accounts and inspection of artifacts, several anthropologists decided to try living in or near the communities they studied to learn from and about them. Two anthropologists in particular, Franz Boas (1888) Boas, F. (1888). The central Eskimo . Washington, DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. and Bronislaw Malinowski (1922), Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London, UK: G. Routledge & Sons; New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. are credited with developing this method around the turn of the 20th century. Boas lived with native populations in Canada and in the American Northwest. Malinowski lived in Papua New Guinea with people who were native to the area. Sociologists picked up on the idea and on the benefits of field research (which we’ll examine in Section 10.2 "Pros and Cons of Field Research" ). Soon a number of sociologists had embraced this new method and adapted field research for their own studies of groups. Many of the early field researchers in sociology were former social workers who got interested in sociological research because of experiences in their roles as social reformers. The University of Chicago in particular played a key role in the development of American field research through, among other projects, its involvement in Hull House, Jane Addams Hull House Association. Retrieved from http://www.hullhouse.org a social settlement founded for European immigrants in Chicago (Deegan, 1986). Deegan, M. J. (1986). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918 . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Key Takeaways

• Field research typically involves a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and document or artifact analysis.
• Different participant observation projects rest in different places on the continuum of complete observer to complete participant; most lie near the middle of the continuum.
• Field research has its origins in anthropology.
• As a preview to some of the pros, cons, joys, and frustrations of doing field research, watch the following clip, which shows “news” personality Stephen Colbert interviewing sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh Venkatesh’s work was introduced in Chapter 2 "Linking Methods With Theory" , the chapter on linking methods with theory. about his field research in some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/156631/march-13-2008/sudhir-venkatesh . The clip highlights some of the advantages field research has over survey interviewing; it also highlights some of the disadvantages of field research. Based on what you see in the clip, what are some of the main advantages of field research as compared to survey interviewing? What are some of the main disadvantages?
• If you would like to learn more about William Foote Whyte’s groundbreaking field research, a 40-minute interview with Whyte and several of his research participants, conducted nearly 40 years after the publication of Street Corner Society , can be found at the following link: http://www.northendwaterfront.com/home/2010/6/18/street-corner-society-video-of-william-foote-whyte-north-end.html . What role did Whyte play in the field: complete observer, complete participant, or something in between? Use evidence from the interview to support your answer. What pros and cons of field research come up in the interview?
• Where do you think is the best place to reside on the observer-participant continuum? Why? What are the pros and cons of each of the various places on the continuum?

10.2 Pros and Cons of Field Research

• Identify and explain the strengths of field research.
• Identify and explain the weaknesses of field research.

Field research has many benefits, as well as a set of drawbacks. We’ll explore both here.

Strengths of Field Research

Field research allows researchers to gain firsthand experience and knowledge about the people, events, and processes that they study. No other method offers quite the same kind of closeup lens on everyday life. This close-up on everyday life means that field researchers can obtain very detailed data about people and processes, perhaps more detailed than they can obtain using any other method.

Field research is an excellent method for understanding the role of social context in shaping people’s lives and experiences. It enables a greater understanding of the intricacies and complexities of daily life. Field research may also uncover elements of people’s experiences or of group interactions of which we were not previously aware. This in particular is a unique strength of field research. With other methods, such as interviews and surveys, we certainly can’t expect a respondent to answer a question to which they do not know the answer or to provide us with information of which they are not aware. And because field research typically occurs over an extended period of time, social facts that may not even be immediately revealed to a researcher but that become discovered over time can be uncovered during the course of a field research project.

In sum, the major benefits of field research are the following:

• It yields very detailed data.
• It emphasizes the role and relevance of social context.
• It can uncover social facts that may not be immediately obvious or of which research participants may be unaware.

Weaknesses of Field Research

Earlier I described the fact that field researchers are able to collect very detailed data as a benefit of this method. This benefit, however, does come at a cost. Because a field researcher’s focus is so detailed, it is by necessity also somewhat narrow. Field researchers simply are not able to gather data from as many individuals as, say, a survey researcher can reach. Indeed, field researchers generally sacrifice breadth in exchange for depth. Related to this point is the fact that field research is extremely time intensive.

Field research can also be emotionally taxing. In Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" , I assert that interview research requires, to a certain extent, the development of a relationship between a researcher and her participants. But if interviews and field research both require relationship development, you might say that interviews are more like casual dating while field research is more like a full-blown, committed marriage.

The relationships you develop as a field researcher are sustained over a much longer period than the hour or two it might take you to conduct an interview. Not only do the relationships last longer, but they are also more intimate. A number of field researchers have documented the complexities of relationships with research participants (Arditti, Joest, Lambert-Shute, & Walker, 2010; Keinman & Copp, 1993; MacLeod, 1995). MacLeod, J. (1995). On the making of ain’t no makin’ it. In J. MacLeod (Ed.), Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood (pp. 270–302). Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Arditti, J. A., Joest, K. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Walker, L. (2010). The role of emotions in fieldwork: A self-study of family research in a corrections setting. The Qualitative Report, 15, 1387–1414; Keinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. On the plus side, these relationships can be very rewarding (and yield the rich, detailed data noted as a strength in the preceding discussion). But, as in any relationship, field researchers experience not just the highs but also the lows of daily life and interactions. And participating in day-to-day life with one’s research subjects can result in some tricky ethical quandaries (see Chapter 3 "Research Ethics" for a discussion of some of these quandaries). It can also be a challenge if your aim is to observe as “objectively” as possible.

Finally, documentation can be challenging for field researchers. Where survey researchers have the questionnaires participants complete and interviewers have recordings, field researchers generally have only themselves to rely on for documenting what they observe. This challenge becomes immediately apparent upon entering the field. It may not be possible to take field notes as you observe, nor will you necessarily know which details to document or which will become the most important details to have noted. And when you take notes after some observation, you may not recall everything exactly as you saw it when you were there.

In sum, the weaknesses of field research include the following:

• It may lack breadth; gathering very detailed information means being unable to gather data from a very large number of people or groups.
• It may be emotionally taxing.
• Documenting observations may be more challenging than with other methods.
• Strengths of field research include the fact that it yields very detailed data, it is designed to pay heed to social context, and it can uncover social facts that are not immediately obvious.
• Weaknesses of field research include that researchers may have to sacrifice breadth for depth, the possibility that the research will be emotionally taxing, and the fact that documenting observations can be challenging.
• In your opinion, what is the most important strength of field research? What do you view as its greatest weakness? Explain your position.
• Find an article reporting results from field research. You can do this by using the Sociological Abstracts database, which was introduced in Chapter 4 "Beginning a Research Project" . How do the authors describe the strengths and weaknesses of their study? Are any of the strengths or weaknesses described in this section mentioned in the article? Are there additional strengths or weaknesses not mentioned in this section?

10.3 Getting In

• Identify the two major considerations with respect to “getting in” field research sites.
• Describe the factors one should consider when choosing a field research site.
• Explain how one’s social location is relevant for choosing a field research site.
• Describe the factors one should consider when deciding what role to play in a field research site.
• Explain the difference between overt and covert roles in field research.

When embarking on a field research project, there are two major things to consider: where to observe and what role you’ll take in your field site. Your decision about each of these will be shaped by a number of factors, some of which you’ll have control over and others which you won’t. Your decision about where to observe and what role to play will also have consequences for the data you are able to gather and how you analyze and share those data with others. We’ll examine each of these contingencies in the following subsections.

Choosing a Site

Where you observe might be determined by your research question, but because field research often works inductively, you may not have a totally focused question before you begin your observations. In some cases, field researchers home in on a research question once they embark on data collection. Other times, they begin with a research question but remain open to the possibility that their focus may shift as they gather data. In either case, when you choose a site, there are a number of factors to consider. What do you hope to accomplish with your field research? What is your topical/substantive interest? Where are you likely to observe behavior that has something to do with that topic? How likely is it that you’ll actually have access to the locations that are of interest to you? How much time do you have to conduct your participant observations? Will your participant observations be limited to a single location, or will you observe in multiple locations?

Perhaps the best place to start as you work to identify a site or sites for your field research is to think about your limitations . One limitation that could shape where you conduct participant observation is time. Field researchers typically immerse themselves in their research sites for many months, sometimes even years. In my field research on activism in the breast cancer and antirape movements, I conducted over 300 hours of participant observation over a period of 3 years and conducted interviews with more than 60 activists (Blackstone, 2003). Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. And as shown in Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" , other field researchers have spent as much or even more time in the field. Do you have several years available to conduct research, or are you seeking a smaller-scale field research experience? How much time do you have to participate and observe per day? Per week? Identifying how available you’ll be in terms of time will help you determine where and what sort of research sites to choose.

Also think about where you live and whether travel is an option for you. Some field researchers actually move to live with or near their population of interest. Is this something you might consider? Is it even an option? How you answer these questions will shape how you identify your research site. Professor Erik Larson’s (2010) Larson, E. (2010). Time and the constitution of markets: Internal dynamics and external relations of stock exchanges in Fiji, Ghana, and Iceland. Economy and Society, 39, 460–487. research on variations in economic institutions in a global environment, for example, has taken him across the globe, from Fiji to Ghana to Iceland. Sociologist Sara Dorow’s (2006) Dorow, S. (2006). Transnational adoption: A cultural economy of race, gender, and kinship . New York, NY: New York University Press. research on transnational adoption took her from the United States to China. And the work of Wendy Chapkis (1997), Chapkis, W. (1997). Live sex acts: Women performing erotic labor . New York, NY: Routledge. described in Table 10.1 "Field Research Examples" , required her to conduct research not only in her original home state of California but also in the Netherlands. These are just a few of many examples of sociological researchers who have traveled the globe for the purpose of collecting data. Where might your field research questions take you?

In choosing a site, also consider how your social location might limit what or where you can study. The ascribed aspects of our locations are those that are involuntary, such as our age or race or mobility. How might my ascribed status as a middle-aged woman, for example, shape my ability to conduct complete participation in a study of children’s birthday parties? The achieved aspects of our locations, on the other hand, are those that we have some choice about. In field research, we may also have some choice about whether or the extent to which we reveal the achieved aspects of our identities. There are numerous examples of field researchers whose achieved statuses granted them access to field sites into which they might not have otherwise been allowed. Jennifer Pierce (1995), Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms . Berkeley: University of California Press. for example, utilized her achieved status as a paralegal to gain entry into two law offices for her ethnographic study of the gendered division of labor in corporate law firms. In Lauraine Leblanc’s (1999) Leblanc, L. (1999). Pretty in punk: Girls’ gender resistance in a boys’ subculture . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. case, the achieved status of her appearance, including tattoos and a “punk” hairstyle and color, helped her gain the acceptance of research participants in her study of punk girls.

The preceding discussion should not be taken to mean that sociologists cannot, should not, or do not study those from whom we differ. In fact there have been plenty of successful field studies conducted by researchers who may have looked out of place in the sites they chose to investigate. Teresa Gowan, a self-described “small, white English woman” (2010, p. 16), Gowan, T. (2010). Hobos, hustlers, and backsliders: Homeless in San Francisco . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. conducted field research with homeless men in some of San Francisco’s most notoriously rough neighborhoods. The aim here is not to reify the socially constructed categories upon which our society places so much emphasis in organizing itself. Rather, the point is to be aware of which ascribed and achieved aspects of your identity may shape your decisions about field sites.

Finally, in choosing a research site consider whether your research will be a collaborative project or whether you are on your own (Douglas, 1976). Douglas, J. D. (1976). Investigative social research: Individual and team field research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Collaborating with others has many benefits; you can cover more ground and therefore collect more data than you can on your own. And having collaborators in any research project, but especially field research, means having others with whom to share your trials and tribulations in the field. However, collaborative research comes with its own set of challenges such as possible personality conflicts among researchers, competing commitments in terms of time and contributions to the project, and differences in methodological or theoretical perspectives (Shaffir, Marshall, & Haas, 1979). Shaffir, W., Marshall, V., & Haas, J. (1979). Competing commitments: Unanticipated problems of field research. Qualitative Sociology, 2, 56–71. If you are considering collaborative field research, you are in good company; many fascinating examples precede you. David Snow and Leon Anderson (1993) Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1993). Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press. conducted a collaborative study of homelessness in Austin, Texas. And researchers at the University of Minnesota recently conducted a large-scale, cross-country field study of how forms of difference such as race and religion shape American life and experience ( http://www.soc.umn.edu/research/amp.html ). When considering something that is of interest to you, consider also whether you have possible collaborators. How might having collaborators shape the decisions you make about where to conduct participant observation?

I began this discussion by asking you to think about limitations that might shape your field site decisions. But it makes sense to also think about the opportunities —social, geographic, and otherwise—that your location affords. Perhaps you are already a member of an organization where you’d like to conduct research. Maybe you know someone who knows someone else who might be able to help you access a site. Perhaps you have a friend you could stay with, enabling you to conduct participant observations away from home. Choosing a site for participation is shaped by all these factors—your research question and area of interest, a few limitations, some opportunities, and sometimes a bit of being in the right place at the right time.

Choosing a Role

As with choosing a research site, some limitations and opportunities beyond your control might shape the role you take once you begin your participant observation. You’ll also need to make some deliberate decisions about how you enter the field and “who” you’ll be once you’re in.

In terms of entering the field, one of the earliest decisions you’ll need to make is whether to be overt or covert. As an overt Researcher enters the field by revealing status as a researcher; participants know they are being studied. researcher, you enter the field with research participants having some awareness about the fact that they are the subjects of social scientific research. Covert Researcher enters the field by pretending to be a participant only; participants do not know they are being studied. researchers, on the other hand, enter the field as though they are full participants, opting not to reveal that they are also researchers or that the group they’ve joined is being studied. As you might imagine, there are pros and cons to both approaches. A critical point to keep in mind is that whatever decision you make about how you enter the field will affect many of your subsequent experiences in the field.

As an overt researcher, you may experience some trouble establishing rapport at first. Having an insider at the site who can vouch for you will certainly help, but the knowledge that subjects are being “watched” will inevitably (and understandably) make some people uncomfortable and possibly cause them to behave differently than they would were they not aware of being research subjects. Because field research is typically a sustained activity that occurs over several months or years, it is likely that participants will become more comfortable with your presence over time. Overt researchers also avoid a variety of moral and ethical dilemmas that they might otherwise face. A Far Side cartoon demonstrates this point perfectly. It depicts a “researcher” dressed up like a gorilla, hanging out with a few other gorillas. In the cartoon, one of the real gorillas is holding out a few beetle grubs to the researcher, and the caption reads, “So you’re a real gorilla, are you? Well I guess you wouldn’t mind munchin’ down a few beetle grubs, would you? In fact, we wanna see you chug ’em!” ( http://www.e-noah.net/asa/asashoponlineservice/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=ASAOE710N04 ).

As a covert researcher, “getting in” your site might be easier, but then you might face other issues. For how long would you plan to conceal your identity? How might participants respond once they discover you’ve been studying them? And how will you respond if asked to engage in activities you find unsettling or unsafe? Field researcher Richard Mitchell (1991) Mitchell, R. G., Jr. (1991). Secrecy and disclosure in fieldwork. In W. B. Shaffir and R. A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp. 97–108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. was forced to consider these very questions during his covert research among right-wing survivalists when he was asked to participate in the swapping of violently racist and homophobic stories, an experience over which he later expressed profound grief and deep regret. Beyond your own personal level of comfort with deceiving participants and willingness to take risks, it is possible that the decision about whether to enter the field covertly will be made for you. If you are conducting research while associated with any federally funded agency (and even many private entities), your institutional review board (IRB) probably will have something to say about any planned deception of research subjects. Some IRBs approve deception, but others look warily upon a field researcher engaging in covert participation. The extent to which your research site is a public location, where people may not have an expectation of privacy, might also play a role in helping you decide whether covert research is a reasonable approach.

I mentioned that having an insider at your site who can vouch for you is helpful. Such insiders, with whom a researcher may have some prior connection or a closer relationship than with other site participants, are called key informants Field site insider with whom the field researcher has a closer relationship and who can provide insider knowledge about a group being observed. . A key informant can provide a framework for your observations, help “translate” what you observe, and give you important insight into a group’s culture. If possible, having more than one key informant at a site is ideal, as one informant’s perspective may vary from another’s.

Once you’ve made a decision about how to enter your field site, you’ll need to think about the role you’ll adopt while there. Aside from being overt or covert, how close will you be to participants? In the words of Fred Davis (1973), Davis, F. (1973). The Martian and the convert: Ontological polarities in social research. Urban Life, 2, 333–343. who coined these terms in reference to researchers’ roles, will you be a Martian , a Convert , or a bit of both? Davis describes the Martian role as one in which a field researcher stands back a bit, not fully immersed in the lives of his subjects, in order to better problematize, categorize, and see with the eyes of a newcomer what’s being observed. From the Martian perspective, a researcher should remain disentangled from too much engagement with participants. The Convert, on the other hand, intentionally dives right into life as a participant. From this perspective, it is through total immersion that understanding is gained. Which approach do you feel best suits you?

In the preceding section we examined how ascribed and achieved statuses might shape how or which sites you choose for your field research. They also shape the role you adopt in your field site. The fact that I am a professor, for example, is an achieved status, and I can choose the extent to which I share this aspect of my identity with field study participants. In some cases perhaps sharing that I am a professor would enhance my ability to establish rapport; in other field sites it might stifle conversation and rapport-building. As you’ve seen from the examples provided throughout this chapter, different field researchers have taken different approaches when it comes to using their social locations to help establish rapport and dealing with ascribed statuses that differ from those of their “subjects.”

Whatever role you choose, many of the points made in Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" about power and relationships with participants apply to field research as well. In fact, the researcher-researched relationship is even more complex in field studies, where interactions with participants last far longer than the hour or two it might take to interview someone. Moreover, the potential for exploitation on the part of the researcher is even greater in field studies as relationships are usually closer and lines between “research” and personal or off-the-record interaction may get blurred. These precautions should be seriously considered before deciding to embark upon a field research project.

• When beginning a field research project, one must take care in planning where to conduct observations and what role to adopt in one’s field site.
• The time you have available to spend in the field will be a major factor in choosing your research site.
• There are pros and cons to both the overt and the covert researcher roles.
• Ascribed and achieved statuses both shape the choices that field researchers make about their sites and about their roles within those sites.
• Try to name at least three different locations where you might like to conduct field research. What barriers would you face were you to attempt to enter those sites as a researcher? In what ways might your entrée into the sites be facilitated by your social location?
• What is your opinion about researchers taking on a covert as compared with an overt role in field research? Which role would you like to take in a field research project? Why?

10.4 Field Notes

• Define descriptive field notes.
• Cite the variety of ways that field researchers might take notes while in the field.
• Describe what should be noted when taking field notes.

Field notes are your opportunity to write poorly and get away with it. I say that in jest, but there is some truth to it. This is one type of writing where you should not be going for literary value, to make your writing interesting, and even to make it readable for anyone other than yourself. Instead, the aim is to record your observations as straightforwardly and, while in the field, as quickly as possible in a way that makes sense to you . Field notes In field research, the official record that affirms what you observed. are the first—and a necessary—step toward developing quality analysis. They are also the record that affirms what you observed. In other words, field notes are not to be taken lightly or overlooked as unimportant.

Some say that there are two different kinds of field notes: descriptive and analytic. Though the lines between what counts as “description” and what counts as “analysis” can get pretty fuzzy, the distinction is nevertheless useful when thinking about how to write and how to interpret field notes. In this section, we’ll focus on descriptive field notes. Descriptive field notes Notes that describe a field researcher’s observations as straightforwardly as possible. are notes that simply describe a field researcher’s observations as straightforwardly as possible. These notes typically do not contain explanations of or comments about those observations. Instead, the observations are presented on their own, as clearly as possible. In the following section, we’ll examine the uses and writing of analytic field notes more closely.

Writing in the Field

Field researchers use a variety of strategies to take notes while in the field. Some research is conducted in settings where sitting with a notebook, iPad, or computer is no problem (e.g., if conducting observations in a classroom or at a meeting), but this is probably the exception rather than the norm. More often, field researchers must find creative ways to note their observations while engaged in the field. I’ve heard about field researchers jotting notes on their hands and arms, keeping very small notebooks in their pockets and occasionally jotting notes there, carrying small recorders to make quick observations, and even writing notes on toilet paper during visits to the restroom. With the advent of smartphones, taking notes in the field has become less arduous than it once was, as it is common to see someone texting or surfing the web from their phone in almost any setting.

Your strategy for recording your observations while in the field will be determined mostly by the site you choose and the role you play in that site. Will you be in a setting where having a notebook or smartphone in your hands will look out of place? If no, by all means, take notes! But don’t let your note taking distract you from what’s happening around you. Writing notes while in the field requires a fine balance between jotting down your observations and actually engaging in the setting. If you are strictly an observer, these will be easy to balance. But if you are also a participant, don’t let your note taking keep you from participating. If you do happen to be in a location where taking notes “in the moment” would be too obvious, rude, or distracting, you may still be able to occasionally jot down a few things very quickly. You may also need to develop a way of jotting down observations that doesn’t require complete sentences or perhaps even words. I know several field researchers who developed their own version of shorthand to take notes, using some combination of abbreviations and symbols, without taking too much time away from their participation in the field.

As with other proficiencies one develops, writing field notes is a skill that can be improved with practice. Recall the discussion in Chapter 1 "Introduction" about the dangers of informal observation. Conducting field research and taking field notes are decidedly not informal activities. In field research, observation is deliberate, not haphazard. That said, for a first-time field researcher, taking field notes can feel like a pretty haphazard activity. Understanding when to write, what to write, where to write, and how to write are all skills that field researchers develop with experience. I demonstrate this point to students early in our discussion of field methods by sending them out of the classroom in groups of two or three each and having them take notes about what they observe over a 15-minute period of time. No problem, they say. How hard can it be? Pretty tough, as it turns out. Students typically return from their 15 minutes of observation frustrated, confused, and annoyed with me for putting them through the experience.

So why torture my students in this way? It isn’t just to be a jerk, I promise. When students return to the classroom, I ask them to compare notes with their group members and discuss what strategies they used in making and recording observations. Typically, students have some overlap in the kinds of things noted, but inevitably one person will have paid more attention to conversations overheard, another to actions and unspoken physical expressions such how people walked or dressed, and yet another to nonhuman surroundings such as the landscape, sounds, and scents. Students conducting this exercise also often use different note-taking strategies, some drawing more pictures, others writing in complete sentences, others using abbreviations. I ask them to talk about what they’ve learned from the experience and the following two “lessons” are among the most frequently cited: (a) taking field notes is hard, and (b) it would have been nice to have some more direction before the exercise so they knew what to zero in on.

I’m always glad to hear that students recognize the difficulty of the task, and it’s true that I give them very few instructions prior to the field note exercise. This is intentional. In part I hope to make the point that while field research projects often occur inductively, this doesn’t mean that field researchers enter the field with absolutely no idea about what they plan to observe. Having a research question or topic in mind helps a researcher focus her or his observations. At the same time, it is important that field researchers not allow their original question or topic blind them to occurrences in the field that may not seem particularly important at the time. As I share with my students, you never know whether or how some observation might be important down the line. We’ll take a closer look at this point in Section 10.5 "Analysis of Field Research Data" .

No matter how difficult it can be to write notes while in the field, it is worth the effort. Field researchers rely on the notes they take in the field to develop more complete notes later and, eventually, to develop analysis. Have you heard the popular philosophical question about trees falling? It goes something like this: If a tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it, did it actually make a sound? I don’t have a good answer for you from a philosophical perspective, but I can say that when it comes to field research, if you observe something but neglect to note it, it might as well not have happened. This is because you, like any other human being, cannot possibly be expected to remember everything that you see happen over the hours, days, months, or years that you spend collecting data in the field. For this reason, writing notes in the field (to the extent possible) is important, as is “filling in” those notes as soon as you are in a location where you can focus on more formal note taking. We examine this more formal aspect of note taking next.

Writing out of the Field

Immediately upon leaving any observation in the field, you should take the time to complete the brief notes you took while in the field. Even if you feel that the notes you’ve taken in the field are complete, you’ll be surprised by how much more you’ll recall once you sit down without distractions and read through what you’ve jotted down. You’ll also have the opportunity to add your own reflections, or observations about your observations, when you write up more complete notes.

When you type up notes upon returning from an observation, you should “fill in the blanks” and write as much as possible about what you’ve just observed. Even if it seems mundane, I think it’s fair to say that one’s field notes can never contain too much detail. Writing as much as possible, in as much detail as possible, should also help you avoid generalizing in your field notes. Be specific about what you observe; rather than saying that “everyone” said or did something, make note of exactly who said or did X (or note that you’re not sure exactly who did so but that it seemed as if most everyone did). Rather than saying that someone you observed was “angry,” describe what gave you that impression. For example, was that person yelling, red in the face, or shaking her fist?

Don’t forget to describe exactly where you were and detail your surroundings (in addition to describing the interactions and conversations you observed and participated in). Early in a field research project you may focus slightly more on describing the “lay of the land” than you do later on. This might mean writing up very detailed descriptions of the locations you observe and the people with whom you interact. You might also draw a map or, if appropriate in your setting, take pictures of your field sites. If your observations will be conducted in the same place and with the same people, these descriptive details you write up early on will become less noticeable to you over time. It will be helpful to have some documentation of your first impressions and of the sort of details that later become so much a part of the everyday scene that you stop noticing them. The following excerpt from my own field notes comes from my first meeting with two of the key informants in my field research in the breast cancer movement.

1/14/99, 11:00am

Met Jane and Polly at the XX office today. I was scheduled to be there at 10:30 but traffic was so bad due to last night’s snow storm that I did not get there until 11:00am. Jane and Polly did not seem bothered by my tardiness (Polly, “We don’t keep a time clock around here.”). I walked into the building and took the elevator up to the second floor. I was a little unsure about where to go from there so I just walked into the first open door and said, “I’m looking for the XX office.” A woman showed me into a large office (long and slightly irregular shape with windows on one wall, a desk and table and many chairs. Also two computers set up on a counter that runs along the wall across from the windows.) Two women were looking at a computer screen that was on the counter. When I walked in I introduced myself and Jane and Polly introduced themselves to me. Both women shook my hand, though Jane was the first to do so and did so with slightly more self-assurance than Polly. Polly told me to hang my coat on one of the “coat racks” and gestured to the many chairs that were around the office. I placed my coat and purse in what I hoped would be the most out of the way location; a corner behind the table. (Blackstone, 2003) Blackstone, A. (2003). Racing for the cure and taking back the night: Constructing gender, politics, and public participation in women’s activist/volunteer work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

The description in my field notes continues for several more paragraphs, but I won’t torture you with those details. As you can see, this field notes excerpt is definitely not going to win the Pulitzer Prize for its riveting story or prose. Thankfully, that isn’t its purpose. Instead, the goal was to describe a location where I knew I’d be spending a fair amount of time and to describe my first impressions of the two women I knew would be likely candidates for key informants. One thing you’ll notice is that I used quotation marks every time I directly quoted a person. Including as many direct quotes as you can is a good idea, as such quotes provide support for the analytic points you’ll make when you later describe patterns in your data. This is another reason that taking notes in the field (to the extent possible) is a good idea. Direct quotes may be difficult to remember hours or even minutes after hearing them. For this reason you may wish to write verbatim quotes while in the field and then take the time to describe the circumstances under which something was said later on when you write up your full notes after leaving the scene.

Another thing you might find were you to read through the many pages of field notes I took during my participant observation is that I use all capital letters and brackets in some places. This is the strategy I developed for expressing my own personal feelings and impressions in my field notes. While the distinction between what one actually observed and what one thinks about what he or she observed is not always easy to make, most field researchers do attempt to distinguish between these two categories of information.

The bracketed portions of your field notes may never be used, but in some cases they will become the very early stages in your analysis of data. My notes from three years of participant observation include bracketed notes of both types. Sometimes, I used bracketed notes to express emotion or purge difficult thoughts or feelings. This was especially helpful when I felt upset about or annoyed by something that had occurred in the field. Because field research requires developing personal relationships with “subjects,” and because interpersonal relationships all experience various highs and lows, it is important to express your feelings about those relationships in your notes. Writing these more personal reflections may become important for analysis later or they may simply be cathartic at the moment. They might also reveal biases you have about the participants that you should confront and be honest about.

Every field researcher’s approach to writing up field notes will vary according to whatever strategy works best for that individual. Where I used brackets to document personal feelings and reflections on bits of data, other field researchers may use the “comments” function in a word processing program or use a different font type, size, or color to distinguish observations from reflections. Others might create two columns for their full field notes—one containing notes only about what was observed directly and the other containing reactions and impressions. There isn’t a wrong way to write field notes. What’s important is that you adopt a strategy that enables you to write accurately, to write as much detail as possible, and to distinguish observations from reflections.

• When taking descriptive field notes, researchers should try to make note of their observations as straightforwardly as possible.
• Field researchers might use any number of tools or strategies to facilitate taking notes in the field such as writing on one’s own hands, dictating observations into a handheld recorder, or taking notes in the form of text messages on one’s phone.
• In field research, observation is deliberate, not haphazard.
• Note taking does not end when a researcher exits an observation; handwritten notes are typed up immediately upon leaving the field so that researchers can “fill in the blanks” in their brief notes taken while in the field.
• Try out the note-taking exercise that my students complete in class. Find another person or two with whom you can conduct observations and take notes for about 15 minutes (perhaps someplace in your campus library, student union, or dorm). Sit near your peers who are also taking notes but do not talk with them during this portion of the exercise. Be sure to use all of your senses as you take notes: your eyes, your ears, your nose, your mouth, and your sense of touch. When your 15 minutes are up, compare notes with your peers. Where are there similarities? Where are their differences? Why do those similarities and differences exist? What strategy did you each employ to take notes? How might you approach field note taking differently were you asked to do it again?

10.5 Analysis of Field Research Data

• Define analytic field notes and explain how they differ from descriptive field notes.
• Explain why making note of mundane details is a good idea.
• Describe the process by which field researchers analyze their data.
• Define grounded theory.

Field notes are data. But moving from having pages of data to presenting findings from a field study in a way that will make sense to others requires that those data be analyzed. Analysis of field research data is the focus in this final section of the chapter.

From Description to Analysis

Writing and analyzing field notes involves moving from description to analysis. In Section 10.4 "Field Notes" , we considered field notes that are mostly descriptive in nature. Here we’ll consider analytic field notes. Analytic field notes Notes that include the researcher’s impressions about her or his observations. are notes that include the researcher’s impressions about his observations. Analyzing field note data is a process that occurs over time, beginning at the moment a field researcher enters the field and continuing as interactions are happening in the field, as the researcher writes up descriptive notes, and as the researcher considers what those interactions and descriptive notes mean.

Often field notes will develop from a more descriptive state to an analytic state when the field researcher exits a given observation period, messy jotted notes or recordings in hand (or in some cases, literally on hand), and sits at a computer to type up those notes into a more readable format. We’ve already noted that carefully paying attention while in the field is important; so too is what goes on immediately upon exiting the field. Field researchers typically spend several hours typing up field notes after each observation has occurred. This is often where the analysis of field research data begins. Having time outside of the field to reflect upon your thoughts about what you’ve seen and the meaning of those observations is crucial to developing analysis in field research studies.

Once the analytic field notes have been written or typed up, the field researcher can begin to look for patterns across the notes by coding the data. This will involve the iterative process of open and focused coding that is outlined in Chapter 9 "Interviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches" . As mentioned several times in Section 10.4 "Field Notes" , it is important to note as much as you possibly can while in the field and as much as you can recall after leaving the field because you never know what might become important. Things that seem decidedly unimportant at the time may later reveal themselves to have some relevance.

In my field research experience, I was often surprised by the bits of data that turned out to hold some analytic relevance later on. For example, my field notes included a number of direct quotes and descriptions of informal interactions with participants that I didn’t expect would be important but that I nevertheless jotted down. Several of these quotes eventually made their way into my analysis. For example, Polly, who ran the volunteer office for a breast cancer organization, once remarked to me, “We [in the volunteer office] don’t use disposable cups here. It is always best to have coffee in a real mug. It’s much nicer that way” (Blackstone, 2004, p. 187). Blackstone, A. (2004). Sociability, work, and gender. Equal Opportunities International, 23, 29–44.

It didn’t occur to me at the time that this was just one of many tasks that Polly and other women volunteers do that remains largely invisible to the beneficiaries of their work. Because it is “much nicer” for volunteers to drink out of a real mug instead of a disposable cup, Polly actually spends a large amount of time washing mugs every day, and throughout the day, so that a clean, real mug is always available to the many volunteers who show up for brief volunteer shifts at the office each day. Had I not made a note of the coffee cup interaction with Polly, which at the time seemed rather mundane, I may have missed an important analytic point about the invisibility of some components of women’s volunteer labor that I was later able to make in presentations and publications of the work.

Sometimes the analytic process of field researchers and others who conduct inductive analysis is referred to as grounded theory A systematic process in which a researcher generates new theory by inductively analyzing her or his qualitative empirical observations. (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine; Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grounded theory occurs, as you might imagine, from the “ground up.” It requires that one begin with an open-ended and open-minded desire to understand a social situation or setting and involves a systematic process whereby the researcher lets the data guide her rather than guiding the data by preset hypotheses. The goal when employing a grounded theory approach is, perhaps not surprisingly, to generate theory. Its name not only implies that discoveries are made from the ground up but also that theoretical developments are grounded in a researcher’s empirical observations and a group’s tangible experiences.

As exciting as it might sound to generate theory from the ground up, the experience can also be quite intimidating and anxiety-producing as the open nature of the process can sometimes feel a little out of control. Without hypotheses to guide their analysis, researchers engaged in grounded theory work may experience some feelings of frustration or angst. The good news is that the process of developing a coherent theory that is grounded in empirical observations can be quite rewarding—not only to researchers but also to their peers who can contribute to the further development of new theories through additional research and to research participants who may appreciate getting a bird’s-eye view of their everyday experiences.

• In analytic field notes, a researcher makes note of impressions about her or his observations.
• Details that may seem unimportant in the moment may turn out to be important during later analysis; it is therefore crucial that field researchers make note of these observations when conducting field research.
• In analyzing their data, many field researchers conduct grounded theory.
• Grounded theory involves generating theory from the ground up.
• Interested in learning more about grounded theory? Read all about it at the Grounded Theory Institute’s website: http://www.groundedtheory.com/ . What do you think about grounded theory? Is this way of conducting research something that is of interest to you? Why or why not?

'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices

• Open access
• Published: 30 September 2023
• Volume 58 , pages 2357–2387, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Nick Pilcher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5093-9345 1 &
• Martin Cortazzi 2  

17k Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Qualitative Research and Content Analysis

Designing a Research Question

“Qualitative Research” Is a Moving Target

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction: qualitative and quantitative methods, presentations, and practices

Teaching in research methods courses for undergraduates, postgraduates and newer researchers is commonly supported or guided through textbooks with explanations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and cases of how these methods are employed. Student dissertations and theses commonly include methodology chapters closely aligned with these textbook representations. Unexceptionally, dissertations and theses we supervise and examine internationally have methodology chapters and frequently these consider rationales and methods associated with positivist or interpretivist paradigms. Within such positivist or interpretivist frameworks, research approaches are amplified with elaborations of the rationale, the methods, and reasons for their choice over likely alternatives. In an apparent convention, related data are assigned as quantitative or qualitative in nature, with associated labelling as ‘numerical’ or ‘textual'. The different types of data yield different values and interpretive directions, and are clustered conceptually with particular research traditions, approaches, and fields or disciplines. Frequently, these clusters are oriented around 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' conceptualizations.

This paper seeks to show how ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’, whether stereotyped or more nuanced, as binary divisions as presented in textbooks and published resources describing research methods may not always accord with the perceptions and day-to-day practices of university researchers. Such common binary representations of quantitative and qualitative and their associated concepts may hide complexities, some of which are outlined below. Any binary divide between ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ needs caution to show complexity and awareness of disparities with some researchers’ practices.

To date, as far as the present authors are aware, no study has first identified a range of binary representations of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ methods and approaches in a literature review study of the many research methods textbooks and sources which guide students and then, secondly, undertaken an interview study with a range of established participant researchers in widely divergent fields to seek their understandings of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ in their own fields. The findings related here complement and extend the complexities and convergences of understanding the concepts in different disciplines. Arguably, this paper demonstrates how students and novice researchers should not be constrained in their studies by any binary representations of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ the terms. They should feel free to use either (or neither) or both in strategic combinations, as appropriate to their fields.

1.1 Presentations

Characteristically, presentations in research methods textbooks distinguish postivist and interpretivist approaches or paradigms (e.g. Guba and Lincoln 1994 ; Howe 1988 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2011 ) or ‘two cultures’ (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) with associated debates or ‘wars’ (e.g. Creswell 1995 ; Morse 1991 ). Quantitative data are shown as ‘numbers’ gathered through experiments (Moore 2006 ) or mathematical models (Denzin and Lincoln 1998 ), whereas qualitative data are usually words or texts (Punch 2005 ; Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ), characteristically gathered through interviews or life stories (Denzin and Lincoln 2011 ). Regarding analysis, some sources claim that establishing objective causal relationships is key in quantitative analysis (e.g. Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) whereas qualitative analysis uses more discursive and interpretative procedures.

Thus, much literature presents research in terms of two generally distinct methods—quantitative and qualitative—which many students are taught in research methods courses. The binary divide may seem to be legitimated in the titles of many academic journals. This division prevails as designated strands of separated research methods in courses which apparently handle both (cf. Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005 ). Consequently, students may follow this seemingly stereotyped binary view or feel uncomfortable to deviate from it. Arguably, PhD candidates need to demonstrate understanding of such concepts and procedures in a viva—or risk failure (cf. Trafford and Leshem 2002 ). The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘quality’ as “how good or bad something is”; while ‘quantity' is “the amount or number of something, especially that can be measured” (Cambridge 2022 ). But definitions of ‘Qualitative' can be elusive, since “a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically… its distinctive feature of being “qualitative”, the literature is meager” (Aspers and Corte 2019 , p.139). Some observe a “paradox… that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a definition” and that “there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor… data” (Aspers and Corte 2019 , p40). In general, ‘qualitative research’ is an iterative process to discover more about a phenomenon (ibid.). Elsewhere, 'qualitative’ is defined negatively: "It is research that does not use numbers” (Seale 1999b , p.119). But this oversimplifies and hides possible disciplinary variation. For example, when investigating criminal action, numeric information (quantity) always follows an interpretation (De Gregorio 2014 ), and consequently this is a quantity of a quality (cf. Uher 2022 ).

Indeed, many authorities note the presence of elements of one in the other. For example, in analysis specifically, that what are considered to be quantitative elements such as statistics are used in qualitative analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994 ). More generically, that “a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well” (Aspers and Corte 2019 , p.139). In ‘mixed methods’ research (cf. Tashakkori et al. 1998 ; Johnson et al. 2007 ; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011 ) many researchers ‘mix’ the two approaches (Seale 1999a ; Mason 2006 ; Dawson 2019 ), either using multiple methods concurrently, or doing so sequentially. Mixed method research logically depends on prior understandings of quantitative and qualitative concepts but this is not always obvious (e.g. De Gregorio 2014 ); for instance Heyvaert et al. ( 2013 ) define mixed methods as combining quantitative and qualitative items, but these key terms are left undefined. Some commentators characterize such mixing as a skin, not a sweater to be changed every day (Marsh and Furlong 2002 , cited in Grix 2004 ). In some disciplines, these terms are often blurred, interchanged or conjoined. In sociology, for instance, “any quality can be quantified. Any quantity is a quality of a social context, quantity versus quality is therefore not a separation” (Hanson 2008 , p.102) and characterizing quantitative as ‘objective’ and qualitative as ‘subjective’ is held to be false when seeking triangulation (Hanson 2008 ). Additionally, approaches to measuring and generating quantitative numerical information can differ in social sciences compared to physics (Uher 2022 ). Indeed, quantity may consist of ‘a multitude’ of divisible aspects and a ‘magnitude’ for indivisible aspects (Uher 2022 ). Notably, “the terms ‘measurement’ and ‘quantification’ have different meanings and are therefore prone to jingle-jangle fallacies” (Uher 2022 ) where individuals use the same words to denote different understandings (cf. Bakhtin 1986 ). Comparatively, the words ‘unit’ and ‘scale’ are multitudinous in different sciences, and the key principles of numerical traceability and data generation traceability arguably need to be applied more to social sciences and psychology (Uher 2022 ). The interdependence of the terms means any quantity is grounded in a quality of something, even if the inverse does not always apply (Uher 2022 ).

1.2 Practices

The present paper compares representations found in research methods textbooks with the reported practices of established researchers given in semi-structured interviews. The differences revealed between what the literature review of methods texts showed and what the interview study showed both underlines and extends this complexity, with implications for how such methodologies are approached and taught. The interview study data (analysed below) show that many participant researchers in disciplines commonly located within an ostensibly ‘positivist’ scientific tradition (e.g. chemistry) are, in fact, using qualitative methods as scientific procedures (contra Tashakkori et al 1998 ; Guba and Lincoln 1994 ; Howe 1988 ; Lincoln and Guba 1985 ; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011 ; Creswell 1995 ; Morse 1991 ). These interview study data also show that many participant researchers use what they describe as qualitative approaches to provide initial measurements (geotechnics; chemistry) of phenomena before later using quantitative procedures to measure the quantity of a quality (cf. Uher 2022 ). Some participant researchers also say they use quantitative procedures to reveal data for which they subsequently use qualitative approaches to interpret and understand (biology; dendrology) through their creative imaginations or experience (contra e.g. Hammersley, 2013 ). Participant researchers in ostensibly ‘positivist’ areas describe themselves as doubting ‘facts’ measured by machines programmed by humans (thus showing they feel researchers are not outside the world looking in (contra. e.g. Punch 2005 )) or doubting the certainty of quantitative data over time (contra e.g. Punch 2005 ). Critically, the interview study data show that these participant researchers often engage in debate over what a ‘number’ is and the extent to which ‘numbers’ can be considered ‘quantitative’. For example the data show how a mathematician considers that many individuals do not know what they mean by the word ‘quantitative’, and an engineer interprets any numbers involving human judgements as ‘qualitative’. Further, both a chemist and a geotechnician routinely define and use ‘qualitative’ methods and analysis to arrive at numerical values (contra. Davies and Hughes 2014 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2011 ).

Such data refute many textbook and key source representations of quantitative and qualitative as being binary and separately ringfenced entities as shown in the literature review study below (contra e.g. Punch 2005 ; Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Nevertheless, they resonate with much recent and current literature in the field (e.g. Uher 2022 ; De Gregorio 2014 ). They also arguably extend the complexities of the terms and approaches. In some disciplines, these participant researchers only do a particular type of research and never need anything other than clear ‘quantitative’ definitions (Mathematics), and some only ever conduct research involving text and never numbers (Literature). Moreover, some participant researchers consider certain aspects lie outside the ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’ (the theoretical in German Literature), or do research which they maintain does not contain ‘knowledge’ (Fine-Art Sculpture), while others outline how they feel they do foundational conceptual research which they believe comes at a stage before any quantity or quality can be assessed (Philosophy). Indeed, of the 31 participant researchers we spoke to, nine of them considered the terms ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ to be of little relevance for their subject.

1.3 Outline of the two studies

This paper reports and discusses findings from a constructivist grounded approach interview study that interviewed experienced participant researchers (N = 31) in various disciplines (see Table 1 below) about their understandings of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ in their subject areas. Findings from this interview study were compared with findings from a research methods literature review study that revealed many disparities with received and often binary presentations of the concepts in much key literature that informs student research methods courses. In this section we outline the review criteria, the method of analysis, and our findings. The findings are grouped according to how the sources reviewed consider ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ approaches the aspects of positivism and constructivism; the nature of research questions; research methods; analysis; issues of reliability, validity and generalizability; and the value and worth of the different approaches. Following this. We outline the approach, method, and procedure adopted for the interviews with research participants; sampling and saturation; and analysis; beside details of the participant researchers. Subsequently, Theme 2 focuses on contrasts of the interview data with ‘binary’ textbook and key source representations. Theme 3 focuses on what the interview data show about participant researcher perceptions of the value of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ methods and approaches. This section outlines where, how, and sometimes why, participant researchers considered ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ methods approaches to be (or to not be) useful to them. These interview study findings show a surprising range of understandings, usage, and often perceived irrelevance of the terms. In the Discussion section, these findings form the focus of comparison with the literature as well as a consideration of possible implications for approaching and teaching research methods. In the conclusion we summarise the implications for research methods courses, for researchers in different disciplines and interdisciplinary contexts and discuss limitations and suggest future research. Besides adding to the debate on how ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ are conceptualized and how they are related, the paper appeals to those delivering research methods courses and to novice researchers to consider the concepts as highly complex and overlapping, to loosen constraints, and elaborate nuances of the commonplace binary representations of the terms.

2 Literature review study: some key textbooks and sources for teaching Research Methods.

2.1 review criteria.

To identify how concepts are presented in key materials we undertook a literature review study by consulting research methods course reading lists, library search engines, physically available shelves in institutional libraries, and Google Scholar. We wanted to encompass textbooks and some key texts which are recommended to UG, PG Masters and PhD students., for example, ‘textbooks’ like ‘Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for first-time researchers’ (Bell and Waters 2014 ) and ‘Introduction to Research Methods: A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking a Research project (5th Edition)’ (Dawson 2019 ). Such sources were frequently mentioned on reading lists and are freely available in many institutional libraries. We consulted seminal thinkers who have published widely on research methods, such as Denzin and Lincoln, or Cresswell, but we also considered texts which are likely less known such as ‘A tale of two cultures’ (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) and key articles such as ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’ (Flyvbjerg 2006 ). Students can freely find such sources, and are easily directed to them by supervisors. Although a more comprehensively robust search is possible, we nevertheless followed procedures and standard criteria for literature reviews (Atkinson et al. 2015 ).

3 Method of analysis

We assembled a total of 25 sources to look for a number of key tenets. We examined the sources for occurrence of the following: whether quantitative was described as positivist and qualitative was described as constructivist; whether quantitative was said to be science-based and qualitative was more reflective and non-science based; whether the research questions were presented as predetermined in quantitative methods and initially less focused in qualitative methods; whether quantitative methods were structured and qualitative methods were discussed as less structured; whether quantitative analysis focused on cause-effect type relationships and qualitative analysis was more exploratory; whether reliability, validity and generalizability were achieved through large numbers in quantitative research and through in-depth study in qualitative research; whether for particular subjects such as the sciences quantitative approaches were perceived to be of value (and qualitative was implied to have less value) and whether the converse was the case for other subjects such as history and anthropology; and whether mixed methods were considered possible or not possible. The 25 sources are detailed in Appendix 1 . As a confirmatory but less detailed exercise, and also detailed in Appendix 1 , we checked a further 23 research methods textbooks in German, Spanish and French, authored in those languages (rather than translations from English).

3.1 Findings

Overall, related to what quantitative and qualitative approaches, methods and analysis are, we found many key, often binary representations in this literature review. We outline these here below.

3.2 Positivism and constructivism

Firstly, 20 of the sources we reviewed stated that quantitative is considered positivist, and qualitative constructivist (e.g. Tashakkori et al 1998 ; Guba and Lincoln 1994 ; Howe 1988 ; Lincoln and Guba 1985 ; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011 ; Creswell 1995 ; Morse 1991 ). Even if not everyone doing quantitative research (e.g. in sociology) consider themselves positivists (Marsh 1979 ), it is generally held quantitative research is positivist. Here, 12 of the sources noted that quantitative is considered ‘scientific’, situating observers outside the world looking in, e.g. through gathering numerical data (Punch 2005 ; Davis and Hughes 2014 ) whereas qualitative “locates the observer in the world” (Denzin and Lincoln 2011 , p.3). Quantitative researchers “collect facts and study the relationship of one set of facts to another”, whereas qualitative researchers “doubt whether social ‘facts’ exist and question whether a ‘scientific’ approach can be used when dealing with human beings” (Bell and Waters 2014 , p. 9).

3.3 The nature of research questions

Secondly, regarding research questions, “qualitative research… typically has… questions and methods… more general at the start, and… more focused as the study progresses” (Punch 2005 , p.28). In contrast, quantitative research uses “numerical data and typically… structured and predetermined research questions, conceptual frameworks and designs” (Punch 2005 , p.28). Of the sources we reviewed, 16 made such assertions. This understanding relates to type, and nature, of data, which is in turn anchored to particular worldviews. Punch ( 2005 , p 3–4) writes of how “in teaching about research, I find it useful to approach the qualitative-quantitative distinction primarily through…. the nature of the data. Later, the distinction can be broadened to include …. ways of conceptualising the reality being studied, and methods.” Here, the nature of data influences approach: numbers are for quantitative, and not-numbers (commonly words) for qualitative. Similarly, for Miles et al. ( 2018 ) “the nature of qualitative data” is “primarily on data in the form of words, that is, language in the form of extended text” (Miles et al. 2018 , no page). These understandings in turn relate to methods used.

Commonly, specific types of methods are said to be related to the type of approach adopted, and 18 of the sources we reviewed presented quantitative methods as being structured, and qualitative methods as less structured. For example, Davies and Hughes ( 2014 , p.23) claim “there are two principal options open to you: 1… quantitative research methods, using the traditions of science. 2… qualitative research, employing a more reflective or exploratory approach.” Here, quantitative methods are “questionnaires or structured interviews” whereas qualitative methods are “such as interviews or focus groups” (Dawson 2019 , no page given). Quantitative methods are more scientific, involve controlling a set of variables, and may involve experiments, something which, “qualitative researchers are agreed in their opposition to this definition of scientific research, or at least its application to social inquiry” (Hammersley 2013 , p. ix). As Punch notes ( 2005 , p.208), “the experiment was seen as the basis for establishing cause-effect relationships between variables, and its outcome (and control) variables had to be measured.”

4.1 Analysis

Such understandings often relate to analysis, and 16 of the sources we reviewed presented quantitative analysis as being statistical and number related, and qualitative analysis as being text based. With quantitative methods, “the data is subjected to statistical analysis, using techniques… likely to produce quantified, and, if possible, generalizable conclusions” (Bell and Waters 2014 , p.281). With qualitative research, however, this “calls for advanced skills in data management and text-driven creativity during the analysis and write-up” (Davies and Hughes 2014 ). Again, the data’s nature is key, and whilst qualitative analysis may condense data, it does not seek numbers. Indeed, “by data condensation, we do not necessarily mean quantification”, however, “occasionally, it may be helpful to convert the data into magnitudes… but this is not always necessary” (Miles et al. 2018 , npg). Qualitative analysis may involve stages such as assigning codes, subsequently sorting and sifting them, isolating patterns, then gradually refining any assertions made and comparing them to other literature (Miles et al. 2018 ). This could involve condensing, displaying, then drawing conclusions from the data (Miles et al. 2018 ). In this respect, some sources consider qualitative and quantitative analysis broadly similar in overall goals, yet different because quantitative analyses use “well-defined, familiar methods; are guided by canons; and are usually more sequential than iterative or cyclical” (Miles et al. 2018 , npg). In contrast, “qualitative researchers are… more fluid and… humanistic” in meaning making (Miles et al. 2018 , npg). Here, both approaches seek causation and may attempt to reveal ‘cause and effect’ but qualitative approaches often seek multiple and interacting influences, and effects and are less rigid (Miles et al. 2018 ). In quantitative inquiry search for causation relates to “causal mechanisms (i.e. how did X cause Y)” whereas in “the human sciences, this distinction relates to causal effects (i.e. whether X causes Y)” (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011 , p.286). Similarly, that “scientific research in any area… seeks to trace out cause-effect relationships” (Punch 2005 , p.78). In contrast, qualitative research seeks interpretative understandings of human behaviour, “not ‘caused’ in any mechanical way, but… continually constructed and reconstructed” (Punch 2005 , p.126).

4.2 Issues of reliability, validity and generalizability

Regarding reliability, validity and generalizability, 19 of the sources we reviewed presented ideas along the lines that quantitative research is understood to seek large numbers, so quantitative researchers, “use techniques… likely to produce quantified and, if possible, generalizable conclusions (Bell and Waters 2014 , p.9). This means quantitative “research researches many more people” (Dawson 2019 , npg). Given quantitative researchers aim, “to discover answers to questions through the application of scientific procedures” it is anticipated these procedures will “increase the likelihood that the information… will be reliable and unbiased” (Davies and Hughes 2014 , p.9). Conversely, qualitative researchers are considered “more concerned to understand individuals’ perceptions of the world” (Bell and Waters 2014 , p.281) and consequently aim for in-depth data with smaller numbers, “as it is attitudes, behaviour and experiences that are important” (Dawson 2019 , npg). Consequently, generalizability of data is not key, as qualitative research has its “emphasis on a specific case, a focused and bounded phenomenon embedded in its context” (Miles et al. 2018 , npg). Yet, such research is considered generalizable in theoretical insight if not actual data (Flyvbjerg 2006 ).

4.3 The value and worth of the different approaches

Regarding ‘value’ and ‘worth’, many see this related with appropriacy to the question being researched. Thus, if questions involve more quantitative approaches, then these are of value, and if more qualitative, then these are of value, and 6 of the sources we reviewed presented these views (e.g. Bell and Waters 2014 ; Punch 2005 ; Dawson 2019 ). This resonates with disciplinary orientations where choices between given approaches are valued more in specific disciplines. History and Anthropology are seen more qualitative, whereas Economics and Epidemiology may be more quantitative (Kumar 1996 ). Qualitative approaches are valuable to study human behaviour and reveal in-depth pictures of peoples’ lived experience (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln 2011 ; Miles et al. 2018 ). Many consider there to be no real inherent superiority for one approach over another, and “asking whether quantitative or qualitative research is superior to the other is not a useful question” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 , p.2).

Nevertheless, some give higher pragmatic value to quantitative research for studying individuals and people; neoliberal governments consistently value quantitative over qualitative research (Barone 2007 ; Bloch 2004 ; St Pierre 2004 ). Concomitantly, data produced by qualitative research is criticised by quantitative proponents “because of their problematic generalizability” (Bloor and Wood 2006 , p.179). However, other studies find quantitative researchers see qualitative methods and approaches positively (Pilcher and Cortazzi 2016 ). Some even question the qualitative/quantitative divide, and suggest “a more subtle and realistic set of distinctions that capture variation in research practice better” (Hammersley 2013 , p.99).

The above literature review study of key texts is hardly exhaustive, but shows a general outline of the binary divisions and categorizations that exist in many sources students and newer researchers encounter. Thus, despite the complex and blurred picture as outlined in the introduction above, many key texts students consult and that inform research methods courses often present a binary understanding that quantitative is positivist, focused on determining cause and effect, numerical or magnitude focused, uses experiments, and is grounded in an understanding the world can be observed from the outside in. Conversely, qualitative tends to be constructivist, focused on determining why events occur, is word or textual based (even if these elements are measured by their magnitude in a number or numerical format) and grounded in understanding the researcher is part of the world. The sciences and areas such as economics are said to tend towards the quantitative, and areas such as history and anthropology towards the qualitative.

We also note that in our literature review study we focused on English language textbooks, but we also looked at outline details, descriptions, and contents lists of texts in the languages of German, Spanish and French. We find that these broadly confirm the perception of a division between quantitative and qualitative research, and we detail a number of these in Appendix 1 . These examples are all research methods handbooks and student guides intended for under and post-graduates in social sciences and humanities; many are inter-disciplinary but some are more specifically books devoted to psychology, health care, education, politics, and management. Among the textbooks and handbooks examined in other languages, more recent books pay attention to online research and uses of the internet, social media and sometimes to big data and software for data analysis.

In these sources in languages other than English we find massive predominance of two (quantitative/qualitative) or three approaches (mixed). These are invariably introduced and examined with related theories, examples and cases in exactly that order: quantitative; qualitative; mixed. Here there is perhaps the unexamined implication that this is a historical order of research method development and also of acceptability of use (depending on research purposes). Notably, Molina Marin (2020) is oriented to Latin America and makes the point that most European writing about research methods is in English or German, while there are far fewer publications in Spanish and few with Latin American contextual relevance, which may limit epistemological perspectives. This point is evident in French and Spanish publications (much less the case in German) where bibliographic details seem dominated by English language publications (or translations from them). We now turn to outline our interview study.

5 Interview study

5.1 approach and choice of method.

We approached our interview study from a constructivist standpoint of exploring and investigating different subject specialists’ understandings of quantitative and qualitative. Critically, we were guided by the key constructivist tenet that knowledge is not independent of subjects seeking it (Olssen 1996 ), nor of subjects using it. Extending from this we considered interviews more appropriate than narratives or focus groups. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we considered interviews most suited as we wanted to have a free dialogue (cf. Bakhtin 1981 ) regarding how the terms are understood in their subject contexts as opposed to their neutral dictionary definitions (Bakhtin 1986 ), and not to focus on a specific point with many individuals. Specifically, we used ‘semi’-structured interviews. ‘Semi’ can mean both ‘half in quantity or value’ but also ‘to some extent: partly: incompletely’ (e.g. Merriam Webster 2022 ). Our interviews, following our constructionist and exploratory approach, aligned with the latter definition (see Appendix 2 for the Interview study schedule). This loose ‘semi’ structure was deliberately designed to (and did) lead to interviews directed by the participants, who themselves often specifically asked what was meant by the questions. This created a highly technical dialogue (Buber, 1947) focused on the subject.

5.2 Sampling and saturation

Our sampling combined purposive and snowball sampling (Sharma 2017 ; Levitt et al. 2018 ). Initially, participants were purposively identified by subject given the project sought to understand different subject perspectives of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative.’ Later, a combined purposive and snowball sampling technique was used whereby participants interviewed were asked if they knew others teaching particular subjects. Regarding priorities for participant eligibility, this was done according to subject, although generally participants also had extensive experience (see Table 1 ). For most, English was their first language, where it was not, participants were proficient in English. The language of interview choice was English as it was most familiar to both participants and interviewer (Cortazzi et al. 2011 ).

Regarding saturation, some argue saturation occurs within 12 interviews (Guest et al. 2006 ), others within 17 (Francis et al. 2010 ). Arguably, however, saturation cannot be determined in advance of analysis and is “inescapably situated and subjective” (Braun and Clarke 2021 , p.201). This critical role of subjectivity and context guided how we approached saturation, whereby it was “operationalized in a way consistent with the research question(s) and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted” (Saunders et al. 2018 , p.1893). We recognise that more could always be found but are satisfied that 31 participants provided sufficient data for our investigation. Indeed, our original intention was to recruit 20 participants, feeling this would provide sufficient saturation (Francis et al. 2010 ; Guest et al. 2006 ) but when we reached 20, and as we had already started analysis (cf. Braun and Clarke 2021 ) as we ourselves transcribed the interviews (Bird 2005 ) we wanted to explore understandings of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ with other subject fields. As Table 1 shows, ‘English Literature’, ‘Philosophy, and ‘Sculpture’ were only explored after interview 20. These additional subject fields added significantly (see below) to our data.

5.3 Analysis and participant researcher details

Our analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) thematic analysis. Given the study’s exploratory constructionist nature, we combined ‘top down’ deductive type analysis for anticipated themes, and ‘bottom up’ inductive type analysis for any unexpected themes. The latter was similar to a constructivist grounded theory analysis (Charmaz 2010 ) whereby the transcripts were explored through close repeated reading for themes to emerge from the bottom up. We deliberately did not use any CAQDAS software such as NVivo as we wanted to manually read the scripts in one lengthy word document. We recognise that such software could allow us to do this but we were familiar with the approach we used and have found it effective for a number of years. We thus continued to use it here as well. We counted instances of themes through cross-checking after reading transcripts and discussing them, thereby heightening reliability and validity (Golafshani 2003 ). All interviews were undertaken with informed consent and participants were assured all representation was anonymous (Christians 2011 ). The study was approved by relevant ethics committees. Table 1 above shows the subject area, years of experience, and first language of the participant researchers. We also bracket after each subject area whether we consider it to be ‘Science’ or ‘Arts’ or whether we consider them as ‘Arts/Science’ or ‘Science/Arts’. This is of course subjective and in many ways not possible to do, but we were guided in how we categorised these subjects by doing so according to how we feel the methodology sources form the literature review study would categorize them.

5.4 Presentation of the interview study data compared with data from the literature review study

We present our interview study data in the three broad areas that emerged through analysis. Our approach to thematic analysis was to deductively code the interview transcripts manually under the three broad areas of: where data aligns with textbook and key source ‘binary’ representations; where the data contrasts with such representations; and where the data relates to interviewee perceptions of the value of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’. The latter relates to whether participant researchers expressed views that suggested they considered each approach to be useful, valuable, or not. We also read through the transcripts inductively with a view to being open to emerging and unanticipated themes. For each data citation, we note the subject field to show the range of subject areas. We later discuss these data in terms of their implications for research values, assumptions and practices and for their use when teaching about different methods. We provide illustrative citations and numbers of participant researchers who commented in relation to the key points below, but first provide an overview in Table 2 .

5.4.1 Theme 1: Alignments with ‘binary’ textbook and key source representations

The data often aligned with textbook representations. Seven participant researchers explicitly said, or alluded to the representation that ‘quantitative’ is positivist and seeks objectivity whereas ‘qualitative’ is more constructivist and subjective. For example: “the main distinction… is that qualitative is associated with subjectivity and quantitative being objective.” This was because “traditionally quantitative methods they’ve been associated with the positivist scientific model of research whereas qualitative methods are rooted in the constructivist and interpretivist model” (Psychology). Similarly, “quantitative methods… I see that as more… logical to a scientific mode of generating knowledge so… largely depends on numbers to establish causal relations… qualitative, I want to more broadly summarize that as anything other than numbers” (Communication Studies). One Statistics researcher had “always associated quantitative research more with statistics and numbers… you measure something… I think qualitative… you make a statement… without saying to what extent so… so you run fast but it’s not clear how fast you actually run…. that doesn’t tell you much because it doesn’t tell you how fast.” One mathematics participant researcher said mathematics was “ super quantitative… more beyond quantitative in the sense that not only is there a measurement of size in everything but everything is defined in… really careful terms… in how that quantity kind of interacts with other quantities that are defined so in that sense it’s kind of beyond quantitative.” Further, this applied at pre-data and data integration stages. Conversely, ‘qualitative’ “would be more a kind of verbalistic form of reasoning or… logic.”

Another representation four participant researchers noted was that ‘quantitative ‘ has structured predetermined questions whereas ‘qualitative’ has initially general questions that became more focused as research proceeded. For example, in Tourism, “with qualitative research I would go with open ended questions whereas with quantitative research I would go with closed questions.” This was because ‘qualitative’ was more exploratory: “quantitative methods… I would use when the parameters… are well understood, qualitative research is when I’m dealing with topics where I’m not entirely sure about… the answers.” As one Psychology participant researcher commented: “the main assumption in quantitative… is one single answer… whereas qualitative approaches embrace… multiplicity.”

Nineteen participant researchers considered ‘quantitative’ numbers whereas ‘qualitative’ was anything except numbers. For example, “quantitative research… you’re generating numbers and the analysis is involving numbers… qualitative is… usually… text-based looking for something else… not condensing it down to numbers” (Psychology). Similarly, ‘quantitative’ was “largely… numeric… the arrangement of larger scale patterns” whereas, “in design field, the idea of qualitative…is about the measure… people put against something… not [a] numerical measure” (Design). One participant researcher elaborated about Biology and Ecology, noting that “quantitative it’s a number it’s an amount of something… associated with a numerical dimension… whereas… qualitative data and… observations… in biology…. you’re looking at electron micrographs… you may want to describe those things… purely in… QUALitative terms… and you can do the same in… Ecology” (Human Computer Interaction). One participant researcher also commented on the magnitude of ‘quantitative’ data often involving more than numbers, or having a complex involvement with numbers: “I was thinking… quantitative… just involves numbers…. but it’s not… if… NVivo… counts the occurrence of a word… it’s done in a very structured way…. to the point that you can even… then do statistical analysis” (Logistics).

Regarding mixed methods, data aligned with the textbook representations that there are two distinct ‘camps’ but also that these could be crossed. Six participants felt opposing camps and paradigms existed. For example, in Nursing, that “it does feel quite divided in Nursing I think you’re either a qualitative or a quantitative researcher there’s two different schools… yeah some people in our school would be very anti-qualitative.” Similarly, in Music one participant researcher felt “it is very split and you’ll find… some people position themselves in one or the other of those camps and are reluctant to consider the other side. In Psychology, “yes… they’re quite… territorial and passionately defensive about the rightness of their own approaches so there’s this… narrative that these two paradigms… of positivistic and interpretivist type… cannot be crossed… you need to belong to one camp.” Also, in Communication Studies, “I do think they are kind of mutually exclusive although I accept… they can be combined… but I don’t think they, they fundamentally… speak to each other.” One Linguistics participant researcher felt some Linguists were highly qualitative and never used numbers, but “then you have… the corpus analysts who quantify everything and always under the headline ‘Corpus linguistics finally gets to the point… where we get rid of researcher bias; it objectifies the analysis’ because you have big numbers and you have statistical values and therefore… it’s led by the data not by the researcher.” This participant researcher found such striving for objectivity a “very strange thing” as any choice was based on previously argued ideas, which themselves could not be objective: “because all the decisions that you need to put into which software am I using, which algorithm am I using, which text do I put in…. this is all driven by ideas.”

Nevertheless, three participant researchers felt the approaches not diametrically opposed. For example, the same Psychology participant researcher cited immediately above felt people’s views could change: “some people although highly defensive over time… may soften their view as mixed method approaches become more prominent.” Comparatively flexibly, a Historian commented “I don’t feel very concerned by the division between qualitative and quantitative; I think they’re just two that are separate sometimes complementary approaches to study history.” In Translation and Interpreting, one participant researcher said methods could be quantitative, but have qualitative analysis, saying one project had: “an excellent use of quantitative tools… followed by not a qualitative method but qualitative analysis of what that implied.” Thus, much of the data did align with the binary representations of the key textbooks reviewed above and also the representation that approaches could be combined.

5.4.2 Theme 2: Contrasts with ‘binary’ textbook and key source representations

One recurrent contrast with common textbook representations was where both qualitative and quantitative were used in some sciences; nine participant researchers felt this. For example, in Geotechnics, when ascertaining soil behaviour: “the first check, the Qualitative check is to look whether those [the traditional and new paths of soil direction] bear resemblance, [be] coz if that doesn’t have that shape how can I expect there to be a quantitative comparison or… fit.” Both qualitative and quantitative approaches combined helped “rule out coincidence” and using both represented “a check which moves through qualitative… to quantitative.” Quantitative was a “capital Q for want of a better expression” and consisted of ‘bigger numbers’, which constituted “the quantitative or calculated strength.” However, this ‘capital Q’ quantitative data aimed to quantify a qualitatively measured numerically estimated phenomenon. So both were numerical. Nevertheless, over the long-term, even the quantitative became less certain because: “when you introduce that time element… you create… circumstances in which you need to be careful with the way you define the strength… different people have come up with different values… so the quantitative match has to be done with an element of uncertainty.”

Similarly, in Chemistry, both qualitative and quantitative methods and analysis were used, where “ the qualitative is the first one, and after you have the other ones [I—Right to kind of verify] if… if you need that.” Both were used because, “we need to know what is there and how much of each component is there… and a knowledge of what is there is a qualitative one, how much of each one is a quantitative one.” Moreover, “they are analysed sometimes by the same technique ” which could be quantitative or qualitative: “[I—and chromatography, again… would that be qualitative or quantitative or both?] Both, both… the quantitative is the area of the peak, the qualitative is the position in which this characteristic appears.” Here, both were key, and depending on the research goal: “we… use them according to what we need… sometimes it’s enough to detect [qualitative] … other times you need to know how much [quantitative] ”.

For Biology also, both were key: “quantitative is the facts and… qualitative is the theory you’re trying to make fit to the facts you can’t do it the other way around… the quantitative data… just doesn’t tell you anything without the qualitative imagination of what does it mean?” Inversely, in an area commonly understood as quantitative, Statistics, the qualitative was an initial, hypothetical stage requiring later quantitative testing. For example: “very often the hypothesis is a qualitative hypothesis” and then, “you would test it by putting in all sorts of data and then the test result would give you a p-value… and the p-value of course is quantitative because that’s a number.”

In Engineering, both helped research sound frequencies: “we need to measure the spectrum of the different frequencies… created… all those things were quantifiable, but then we need to get participants to listen and tell us… which one do you prefer?… this is a qualitative answer.” Mathematical Biology also used both: qualitative for change in nature of a state, and quantitative for the magnitude of that change. Here: “quantitative changes the numerical value of the steady state but it doesn’t change its stability… but qualitative change is when you… change the parameters and you either change its stability or you change whether it exists or not… and that point over which you cross to change it from being stable to unstable is called a bifurcation point… that’s where I use quantitative and qualitative the most in my research.”

The idea of ‘quantitative’ involving large data sets was expressed; however, the ‘qualitative’ could help represent these. In Computing Mathematics one participant researcher commented that: “quantitative… I do almost 90% of the time…. calculating metrics… and using significance testing to determine whether the numbers mean anything.” Yet, this participant researcher also used qualitative representations for simplified visual representation of large number sets: “I think for me QUALitative work is almost always about visualizing things in a way that tries to illustrate the trends… so I’m not actually calculating numbers but I’m just saying if I somehow present it in in this way.” Concomitantly, ‘quantitative’ could be smaller scale. For example, in Architecture: “my expectation is it wouldn’t be valid until you have a certain quantity of response but that said [I] have had students use… quantitative analysis on a small sample.” Similarly, in History: “you could have a quantitative study of a small data set or a small… number of statistics I really think it’s determined by the questions… you’re asking.”

Interestingly, two participant researchers questioned their colleagues’ understandings of ‘quantitative’ and of ‘numbers’. For example, one Mathematician considered some researchers did not know what ‘quantitative’ meant, because “when they say quantitative… I think what they mean is the same as qualitative except it’s got numbers in it somewhere.” For example, “I’m talking to a guy who does research in pain and, so I do know now what he means by quantitative research, and what he means is that he doesn’t know what he means [both laugh] and he wants me to define what it means… I think he means he wants some form of modelling with data and… he’s not quite sure how to go about doing that.” For this Mathematician, engineers would, “Mean that purposefully when they talk about quantitative modelling” whereas, “generically you know when politicians [consider these things] quantitative just means there’s a number in it somewhere.”

Three participant researchers felt that when ‘quantitative’ involved human elements or decisions, subjectivity was inevitable. One Logistics participant researcher felt someone doing materials research was “Doing these highly quantitative analyses still there is a degree of subjectivity because… this involves human assessment… they’re using different photometric equipment… taking photos… what is the angle.” Another researcher in Sciences similarly noted, “I don’t know why people believe in machines so much because they’re built by humans and there’s so many errors.” An Engineer commented: “To me, just the involvement of humans… gives it a qualitative element no matter what.” For this researcher, with people’s ‘quantitative’ reaction times and memory recall, “I would call that again qualitative you know… yes we did quantify the reaction time… the correct number of answers, but… it’s a person… I could get somebody else now doing it and not get exactly the same answer, so that uncertainty of human participants to me make it a qualitative approach.” For this participant researcher, anything involving human participants was ‘qualitative’: “I would say anything that is measurable, but by measurable I mean physically measurable… or predictable through numbers is quantitative [and] anything that involves a judgment, therefore human participants… is qualitative.”

‘Qualitative’ was often highly subject-specific. For example, in Film Studies and Media—English, ‘qualitative’ was: “about… the qualities of particular texts…. I’ve read a lot about silence as a texture and a technique in cinema… so silence is a quality, and also what are the qualities of that silence.” One Sciences researcher felt ‘qualitative’ involved experience applied to interpreting data: “Qualitative I would define as using your own experience to see if the data makes sense… and… something that… cannot be measured so far by machine… like the shape of a tree.” One Historian also highlighted the importance of subject-sub-branches, saying, “I’d situate myself in history but I guess you’d probably get a different response depending on… whether that historian saw themselves as a cultural historian or as a social and economic historian or… an intellectual historian.”

A fluidity regarding ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ was characterized. One Human Computer Interaction participant researcher commented, “I think sometimes people can use both terms quite loosely without really sort of thinking about [them] .” Comparatively, one Psychology participant researcher commented that “even within the Qual[itative] people they disagree about how to do things [laughs] … so you have people talking about doing IPA [Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis] and they’re doing… and presenting it in completely different ways.” Another Psychologist felt using ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ as an ‘either/or’ binary division erroneously suggested all questions were answerable, whereas: “no method… can… answer this question… and this is something… many people I don’t think are getting is that those different methodologies come with huge limitations… and as a researcher you need… to appreciate… how far your work can go.” One Communication Studies participant researcher even perceived the terms were becoming less used in all disciplines, and that, “we’re certainly in a phase where even these labels now are becoming so arbitrary almost… that they’re not, not carrying a lot of meaning.” However, the terms were considered very context dependent: “I think I’d be very hesitant about… pigeonholing any particular method I’d want to look very closely at the specific context in which that particular method or methodology is being used.” Further, some concepts were considered challenging to align with textbook representations. One German Literature participant researcher, reflecting on how the ‘theoretical’ worked, concluded, “… the theoretical… I’m not sure whether… that is actually within the terms quantitative or qualitative or whether that’s a term… on a different level altogether .” Indeed, many participant researchers (nine in total across many subject areas e.g. Design, Film and Media, Philosophy, Mathematical Biology) confirmed they were fully aware of the commonplace representations, but felt they did not apply to their own research, only using them to communicate with particular audiences (see below).

5.4.3 Theme 3: Perceptions on the value of ‘Quantitative’ and ‘Qualitative’ methods and approaches

As the data above show, many participant researchers valued both ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’, including many scientists (in Geotechnics; Biology, Chemistry, Engineering). Many considered the specific research question key. For example: “I certainly don’t think quantitative bad, qualitative good: it’s horses for courses, yeah” (Tourism). Participant researchers in History and Music Education felt similarly; the latter commenting how “I do feel it’s about using the right tools which is why I wouldn’t want to… enter into this kind of vitriolic negative mud-slinging thing that does happen within the fields because I think people… get too entrenched in one or the other and forget about the fact that these are just various ways to approach inquiry.” Similarly, one Psychologist observed, “I’m always slightly irritated [laughs] when I hear people you know say ‘Oh I’m only doing… qualitative research’ or ‘I’m only doing quantitative research’… I think it’s the research question that should drive the methodological choices.” This participant researcher had “seen good quality in both quantitative and qualitative research.”

Five participant researchers considered quantitative approaches to be of little value if they were applied inappropriately. For example, a Translation and Interpreting participant researcher felt quantitative data-generating eye tracking technology was useful “for marketing,… product placement,… [or] surgeons.” However, for Translation and Interpreting, “I don’t think… it is a method that would yield results… you could find better in a more nuanced manner through other methods, interviews or focus groups, or even ethnographic observation.” One Chemist questioned the value of quantitative methods when the sample was too small. For example, when students were asked about their feedback on classes, and one student in 16 evaluated the classes badly, “4% it was one person [laughs] in 16, one person, but I received that evaluation and I think this is not correct… because sometimes…. I think that one person probably he or she didn’t like me… well, it’s life, so I think these aspects… may happen also but it’s with the precision of the system… the capacity of the system to detect and to measure.” Meaningfulness was held to be key: “When we do the analysis the sample has meaning” . Similarly, a Theoretical Physicist felt quantitative approaches unsuited to education: “in the context of education… we all produce data all the time… we grade students… we assess creativity… people will say… ‘you measure somebody's IQ using this made-up test and you get this kind of statis[tic]..’ and then you realize that all of those things are just bogus… or at least… doesn't measure anything of any real serious significance.” Comparatively, one participant researcher in Design felt ‘quantitative’ had a danger to “lead to stereotypes”; for example, when modern search engines use quantitative data to direct people to particular choices, “There’s potential there to constrain kind of broader behaviours and thinking… and therefore it can become a programmer in its own right.” One Mathematical Biologist commented how statistics can be misused, and how a popular Maths book related “How statistics are a light shone on a particular story from a particular angle to paint a picture that people want you to see but… it’s almost never the whole picture, it’s a half-truth, if you like, at best.”

Seven participant researchers considered that their disciplines valued quantitative over qualitative. This could be non-judgmental, and perhaps inherent in major areas of a discipline, as in Theoretical Physics, where precision is crucial, although this was said not to be ‘disparaging’: “theoretical physics… or physics in general… we… tend to think of ourselves as being very, very quantitative and very precise, and we think of qualitative, I guess… as being a bit vague, right?… which is not disparaging, because sometimes… we have to be a bit vague… and we're working things out.” In Psychology, however, despite “a call to advocate for more qualitative methods”, there, “definitely… is a bias toward quantitative… measures in psychology; all the high impact factor journals advocate for quantitative measures.” In Nursing, quantitative was also deemed paramount, with “the randomized control trial seen as being… you know the apex and… some researchers in our school would absolutely say it’s the only reliable thing… would be very anti-qualitative.”

Yet, four participant researchers were positively oriented towards anything qualitative. For example, one Tourism researcher felt that, “in an uncertain world, such as the one we’re living in today, qualitative research is the way forward.” Also, an Architect highlighted that in one of their studies, “I think the most important finding of my questionnaires was in the subjective comments.” One Music education participant researcher personally favoured qualitative approaches but regretted how their field was biased toward quantitative data, saying they had been informed: “ ‘what journals really care about is that p-value…’ and I remember… thinking… that’s a whole area of humanity… you’re failing to acknowledge.”

Nevertheless, side-stepping this debate, nine researchers considered the terms of little value, and simply irrelevant for their own research. One Film and Media—English participant researcher commented: “I have to say… these are terms I’m obviously familiar with, but… not terms… I… tend to really use in my own research… to describe what I do … mainly because everything that I do is qualitative.” As an English Literature participant researcher noted in email correspondence: “they are not terms we use in literary research, probably because most of what we do is interpretation of texts and substantiating arguments through examples. I have really only encountered these terms in the context of teaching and have never used them myself.” In the interview, this participant researcher commented that “I can imagine… they would be terms… quite common in the sciences and mathematics, but not Social Sciences and Arts.” A German Literature participant researcher felt similarly, commenting that in “German Literature… the term quantitative hadn’t even entered my vocabulary all the way through the PhD [laughs] … because… you could argue the methods in literary research are always qualitative.”

Complementing such perspectives, in Theoretical Physics ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ was: “not something that ever comes up… I don’t think I read a paper ever that will say we do qualitative research in any way, but I never… or hardly ever handle any data… I just have a bunch of principles that are sort of either taken to be true or are… a model… we’re exploring.” In Mathematics, ‘quantitative’ was simply never used as all mathematics research was quantitative: “I never use the word in the company of my colleagues, never, it’s a non-vocabulary word, for the simple reason that when everything is so well defined why do you need a generic term when you’ve got very specific reference points in the language that you’re using?”.

One Philosopher felt the terms did not fit conceptual analysis in philosophy, given that the object of consideration was uncertain: “I guess… I thought it didn’t fit conceptual analysis… you need to know what you’re dealing with in order to then do the quantitative or qualitative whereas in philosophy it feels like… you don’t quite know what you’re dealing with you’re trying to work out… what are rights?… What is knowledge? What is love?… and then look at its qualities.” For this researcher, Philosophy was tentatively pre-quantitative or pre-qualitative, because philosophy “feels like it’s before then.” The terms were not considered valuable for Philosophy or for the humanities generally: “in philosophy we wouldn’t use the term qualitative or quantitative research… you just use the tools… you need… to develop your argument and so you don’t see the distinction… I would say in the humanities that’s relatively similar.” Further, a Fine Art—Sculpture participant researcher said: “they’re not words I would use… partly because… I’m engaged with… through… research and… teaching… what I’d call practice research… and… my background’s in fine art, predominantly in making sculpture and that doesn’t contain knowledge.” Here, the participant researcher related how they may consider a student’s work hideous but if the student had learned a lot through creating the work, they should be rewarded. This participant researcher spoke of a famous sound artist, concluding, “if you asked him about qualitative and quantitative… it just wouldn’t come into his thing at all…. He doesn’t need to say well there were a thousand visitors plus you know it’s just ‘bang’… he wouldn’t think about those things… not as an artist.”

Six participant researchers said they only ever used the terms for particular audiences. For example, for ‘quantitative’ in Film and Media: “the only time is when it’s been related to public engagement that we’ve ever sort of produced anything that is more along quantitative lines,” and that “it was not complex data we were giving them.” In Fine-Art Sculpture, too, the terms were solely used with a funder, for example, to measure attendance at an exhibition for impact, but “that’s not the type of research that I’m involved with necessarily.” One Logistics participant researcher commented that “it really depends on the audience how you define qualitative or quantitative.” For this researcher, if communicating with “statisticians econometricians or a bunch of people who are number crunchers” then “they will be very precise on what quantitative is and what qualitative is” and would only recognise mathematical techniques as quantitative. Indeed, “they wouldn’t even recognize Excel as quantitative because it’s not that hard.” In contrast, for social scientists, Excel would be quantitative, as would “anything to do with numbers… I suppose you know a questionnaire where you have to analyse responses would be probably classed as quantitative.”

Conversely, a Mathematical Biology participant researcher commented they had been doing far more public outreach work, “using quantitative data so numbers… even with things that might often be treated in a qualitative way… so stuff which… is often treated I think qualitatively we try to quantify… I think partly because it’s easier to make those comparisons when you quantify something.” One researcher in Communication Studies said they advised a student that “it depends on your research objectives; if you are focusing on individual experiences… I think naturally that’s going towards qualitative, but if you’re … doing this research oriented to a leader of … [a] big number of people… for informing policy… then you need some sort of insights that can be standardized… so it’s a choice.”

Another Communication participant researcher felt political shifts in the 1990s and 2000s meant that a ‘third way’ now dominated with a move towards hybridity and a breakdown in ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ with everything now tied to neoliberalism. Therefore, since “the late 90s and early noughties I’ve seen this kind of hybridity in research methods almost as being in parallel with the third way there seems to be… no longer opposition between left and right everything… just happens to buy into neoliberalism so likewise… with research methods… there’s a breakdown of qual and quant.” Comparatively, a Historian felt underpinning power structures informed approaches, commenting that “the problem is not the terminology it’s the way in which power is working in the society in which we live in that’s the root problem it seems to me and what’s valued and what’s not.” A Philosopher felt numbers appealed to management even when qualitative data were more suitable: “I think management partly… are always more willing to listen to numbers… finding the right number can persuade people of things that actually… you think really a better persuasion would do something more qualitative and in context.” One Fine Art participant researcher felt ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ only became important when they focused on processes related to the Research Excellence Framework but not for their research as such: “I guess we are using qualitative and quantitative things in the sense of moving ourselves through the process as academics but that’s not what I’d call research.”

6 Discussion: implications for teaching research methods

Research Methods teaching for undergraduate, postgraduate and newer researchers is commonly guided by textbook and seminal text understandings of what constitutes ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’. Often, the two are treated in parallel, or interlinked, and used in combination or sequentially in research. But the relations between these are complex. The above analysis of the interview study with established participant researchers underlines and often extends this complexity, with implications for how such methodologies are approached and taught. Many of these participant researchers in disciplines commonly located within an ostensibly ‘positivist’ scientific tradition are, in fact, using qualitative methods as scientific procedures. They do so to provide initial measurements of phenomena before later using quantitative procedures to measure the quantity of a quality. They also use quantitative procedures to reveal data for which they subsequently use qualitative approaches to interpret and understand through their creative imaginations or experience. Participant researchers in ostensibly positivist disciplines describe themselves as doubting ‘facts’ measured by machines programmed by humans or doubting the certainty of quantitative data over time. Critically, these participant researchers engage in debate over what a ‘number’ is and the extent to which ‘numbers’ can be considered ‘quantitative’. One mathematician spoke of how many individuals do not know what they mean by the word ‘quantitative’, and an engineer interpreted any numbers involving human judgements as ‘qualitative’. Both a chemist and a geotechnician routinely defined and use ‘qualitative’ methods and analysis to arrive at numerical values.

Although this analysis of participant researchers’ reported practices refutes many textbook and key research methods source representations of quantitative and qualitative as being binary and separately ringfenced entities (contra e.g. Punch 2005 ; Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ), they resonate with much recent and current literature in the field (e.g. Uher 2022 ; De Gregorio 2014 ). In some disciplines, participant researchers only do a particular type of research and never need anything other than clear ‘quantitative’ definitions (Mathematics); others only ever conduct research involving text and never numbers (Literature). Further, other participant researchers considered how certain aspects lie outside the ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’ (the ‘theoretical’ in German Literature), or they did research which they maintain does not contain ‘knowledge’ (Fine-Art Sculpture), while others do foundational ‘conceptual’ research which they claim comes at a stage before any quantity or quality can be assessed (Philosophy). Nine researchers considered the terms of little relevance at all to their subject areas.

This leads to subsequent questions. Firstly, do the apparently emerging tensions and contradictions between commonplace textbook and key source presentations and on-the-ground participant researcher practices matter? Secondly, what kind of discourse might reframe the more conventional one?

Regarding whether tensions and contradictions matter: in one practical way, perhaps not, since participant researchers in all these areas continue to be productive in their current research practices. Nevertheless, the foundations of the binary quantitative and qualitative divide are discourse expressions common to research methods courses. These expressions frame how the two terms are understood as the guide for novices to do research. This guiding discourse is evident in specifically designated chapters in research handbooks, in session titles in university research methods modules, and in entries for explanations of research terms within glossaries. The literature review study detailed above illustrates this. ‘Quantitative’ means numbers, ‘qualitative’ means words. ‘Quantitative’ connotes positivist, objective, scientific; ‘qualitative’ implies constructivist, subjective, non-science-based. Arguably, any acceptance of the commonplace research method understanding gives an apparent solidity which can sometimes be a false basis that masks the complexities or inadequacies involved. Such masking can, in turn, allow certain agencies or individuals to claim their policies and practices are based on ‘objective’ numerical data when they are merely framing something as ‘quantitative’ when, as a cited Mathematician participant researcher observed above, it is simply something with a number in it somewhere. Conventionally, limitations are mentioned in research studies, but often they seem ritualized remarks which refer to insufficient numbers, or restricted types of participants, or a constrained focus on a particular area. Rarely do research studies (let alone handbooks and guides for postgraduates) question a taken-for-granted understanding, such as whether the very idea of using numbers with human participants may mean the number is not objective. Ironically, it is the field of Qualitative Inquiry itself in which occasionally some of these issues are mentioned. Concurrently, while the quantitative is promoted as ‘scientific’ and ‘objective evidence’, we find some scientists researching in sciences often question the terms, or consciously set them aside in their practices.

Concerning what could replace the commonplace terms and reframe the research discourse environment: arguably, any discussion of ‘quantitative’/‘qualitative’ should be preceded by key questions of how they are understood by researchers. Hammersley ( 2013 ) has suggested the value of a more nuanced approach. As the Communication Studies participant researcher here commented, the two terms seem to be breaking down somewhat. Nevertheless, alongside the data and arguments here, we see some value in considering things as being ‘quantitative’ or ‘qualitative’, and other value in viewing them as separate. The terms can still be simply outlined, not just as methodological listings of characteristics, but as a critical point, Outlines of methods should include insider practitioner views—illustrations of how they are used and understood by practising researchers in different disciplines (as in Table 2 above). This simple suggestion has benefits. When outlining approaches as qualitative or quantitative, we suggest space is devoted to how this is understood in disciplines, together with the opportunity to question the issues raised by these understandings. This would help to position the understandings of qualitative and quantitative within specific disciplinary contexts, especially in inter-disciplinary fields and, implicitly, it encourages reflection on the objectivity and subjectivity evoked by the terms. Such discussion can be included in research methods texts and in research methods courses, dissertations and frameworks for viva examinations (Cortazzi and Jin 2021 ). Here, rather than start with outlining what the terms mean by using concrete definitions such as ‘Quantitative means X’ the terms should be outlined using subject contextualised phrases such as ‘In the field of X quantitative is understood to mean Y’. In this way, quantitative and qualitative methods and approaches can be seen, understood and contextualised within their subject areas, rather than prescriptively outlined in a generic or common form. Furthermore, if the field is one that has no use for such terms, this can also be stated, to prevent any unnecessary need for their use. Discourse around the terms can be extended if they are seen in line with much current literature and the data above that shows their complexities and overlaps, and goes beyond the binary choices and representations of many textbooks.

7 Conclusion

This paper has presented and discussed data from an interview study with experienced participant researchers (n = 31) regarding their perceptions of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ in their research areas. This interview study data was compared with findings from a literature review study of common textbooks and research methods publications (n = 25) that showed often binary and reified representations of the terms and related concepts. The interview study data show many participant researcher understandings do in some ways align with the binary and commonplace representations of ‘qualitative ‘and ‘quantitative’ as shown to be presented in many research methods textbooks and sources from the literature review study. However, the interview study data more often illustrate how such representations are somewhat inaccurate regarding how research is undertaken in the different areas researched by the participant researchers. Rather, they corroborate much of the current literature that shows the blurring and complexity of the terms. Often, they extend this complexity. Sometimes they bypass complexity when these terms are considered irrelevant to their research fields by many researcher participants. For some researchers, the terms are simply valueless. We propose that future research methods courses could present and discuss the data above, perhaps using something akin to Table 2 as a starting point, so that students and novice researchers are able to loosen or break free of the chains of any stereotypical representations of such terms or use them reflectively with awareness of disciplinary specific usage. This could help them to advance their research, recognizing complex caveats related to the boundaries of what they do, what methods they use, and how to conduct research using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, as interpreted and used in their own fields. In multi- or inter-disciplinary research, such reflective awareness seems essential. Future research could also study the impact of the use of the data here in research methods courses so that such courses encompass both qualitative and quantitative methods (cf. Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005 ) yet also question and contextualise such terms in specific subject areas order to free research from any constraints created by binary representations of the terms.

Whilst we interviewed 31 participant researchers to approach what seems a reasonable level of saturation, clearly future research could add to what we have found here by speaking to a wider range and larger number of researchers. The 25 research methods sources in English (supplemented by 23 sources in German, Spanish and French) examined here can clearly be expanded for a wider analysis of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ in other languages for a more comprehensive European perspective. This strategy might ascertain likely asymmetries between the numerous English language texts (and their translations) and relatively smaller numbers of texts written by national or local experts in other languages. As a world-wide consideration, given the relative paucity of published research guidance in many languages, this point is especially significant related to fitting research methods to local contexts and cultures without imposition. Translating and discussing the terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’, in and beyond European languages, will need care to avoid binary stereotyped or formulaic expression and to maintain some of the insight, resonances and complexities shown here.

Aspers, P., Corte, U.: What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qual. Sociol. 42 (2), 139–160 (2019)

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkinson, K.M., Koenka, A.C., Sanchez, C.E., Moshontz, H., Cooper, H.: Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Res. Synth. Methods 6 (1), 87–95 (2015)

Autran, D., Bassel, G.W., Chae, E., Ezer, D., Ferjani, A., Fleck, C., Wolf, S.: What is quantitative plant biology? Quant. Plant Biol. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/qpb.2021.8

Bakhtin, M.: The dialogic imagination. University of Texas Press, Austin (1981)

Google Scholar  

Bakhtin, M. M. Speech genres and other late essays. In: Trans. Vern W. McGee; Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. University of Texas Press, Austin, (1986)

Barone, T.: A return to the gold standard? Questioning the future of narrative construction as educational research. Qual. Inq. 13 (4), 454–470 (2007)

Bell, J., Waters, S.: Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers (6 th edit.). McGraw-Hill Education, London, (2014)

Bird, C.M.: How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qual. Inq. 11 (2), 226–248 (2005)

Bloch, M.: A discourse that disciplines, governs, and regulates: The national research c report on scientific research in education. Qual. Inq. 10 (1), 96–110 (2004)

Bloor, M., Wood, F.: Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research concepts. Sage, London (2006)

Book   Google Scholar  

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77–101 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., Clarke, V.: To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualit. Res. Sport Exer. Health 13 (2), 201–216 (2021)

Cambridge: Cambridge Dictionary. English Dictionary. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ Last Accessed January 2023. (2022)

Chan, E.S., Okumus, F., Chan, W.: What hinders hotels’ adoption of environmental technologies: a quantitative study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 84 , 102324 (2020)

Charmaz, K.: Grounded theory. Objectivist and constructivist methods. In W. Luttrell (Ed.), Qualitative educational research: Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative practice (pp. 183–207). Routledge, New York. (2010)

Christians, C.G.: Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, pp. 61–80. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2011)

Cortazzi, M., Pilcher, N., Jin, L.: Language choices and ‘blind shadows’: investigating interviews with Chinese participants. Qual. Res. 11 (5), 505–535 (2011)

Cortazzi, M., Jin, L.: The doctoral viva: questions for, with and to candidates (or supervisors). Int. J. Educat. Lit. Stud. 9 (4), 2–15 (2021)

Creswell, J.W.: Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1995)

Davies, M.B., Hughes, N.: Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative methods. Macmillan International Higher Education, London (2014)

Dawson, C.: Introduction to Research Methods: A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking a Research Project, 5th edn. Robinson, London (2019)

De Gregorio, E.: Bridging “quality” and “quantity” in the study of criminal action. Qual. Quant. 48 (1), 197–215 (2014)

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.): The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.): The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th edit). Sage, Thousand Oaks (2011)

Flyvbjerg, B.: Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12 (2), 219–245 (2006)

Francis, J.J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M.P., Grimshaw, J.M.: What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol. Health 25 (10), 1229–1245 (2010)

Goertz, G., Mahoney, J.: A tale of two cultures. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (2012)

Golafshani, N.: Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research the qualitative report, vol. 8 no. 4 597–607. (2003). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pd

Grix, J.: The undations of research. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2004)

Guba, E.G, Lincoln, Y.S: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 105–117. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1994

Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L.: How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (1), 59–82 (2006)

Hammersley, M.: What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Academic, London (2013)

Hanson, B.: Wither qualitative/quantitative? Grounds for methodological convergence. Qual. Quant. 42 , 97–111 (2008)

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Onghena, P.: Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual. Quant. 47 (2), 659–676 (2013)

Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ. Res. 17 (8), 10–16 (1988)

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1 (2), 112–133 (2007)

Kumar, R.: Research methodologies: a step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage, London (1996)

Levitt, H.M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J.W., Frost, D.M., Josselson, R., Suarez-Orozco, C.: Journal article reporting standards for qualitative research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. Am. Psychol. 73 (1), 26–46 (2018)

Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1985)

Marsh, C.: Problems with surveys: method or epistemology? Sociology 13 (2), 293–305 (1979)

Marsh, D., Furlong, P.: A skin, not a sweater: ontology and epistemology in political science. Theory Methods Polit. Sci. 2 (1), 17–41 (2002)

Mason, J.: Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qual. Res. 6 (1), 9–25 (2006)

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J.: Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th edit.). Sage, Los Angeles, (2018)

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)

Moore, N.: How to do research: a practical guide to designing and managing research projects, 3rd edn. Facet, London (2006)

Morse, J.M.: Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs. Res. 40 (2), 120–123 (1991)

Olssen, M.: Radical constructivism and its failings: anti-realism and individualism. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 44 (3), 275–295 (1996)

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: Taking the “Q” out of research: teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Qual. Quant. 39 (3), 267–295 (2005)

Pilcher, N., Cortazzi, M.: Dialogues: QUANT researchers on QUAL methods. Qual. Report 21 (3), 450–473 (2016)

Punch, K.: Introduction to social research quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2005)

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Jinks, C.: Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qualit. Quant. 52 (4), 1893–1907 (2018)

Seale, C.: Quality in qualitative research. Qual. Inq. 5 , 465–478 (1999a)

Seale, C.: The Quality of Qualitative Research. Sage, London (1999b)

Sharma, G.: Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int. J. Appl. Res. 3 (7), 749–752 (2017)

St Pierre, E.A.: Refusing alternatives: a science of contestation. Qual. Inq. 10 (1), 130–139 (2004)

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., Teddlie, C.B.: Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A. Mixed methods research. Contemporary Issues in an emerging Field. In Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4 th edit.), pp. 285–300. Sage, Thousand Oaks, (2011)

Trafford, V., Leshem, S.: Starting at the end to undertake doctoral research: predictable questions as stepping stones. High. Educ. Rev. 35 (1), 31–49 (2002)

Uher, J.: Functions of units, scales and quantitative data: fundamental differences in numerical traceability between sciences. Qual. Quant. 56 (4), 2519–2548 (2022)

Merriam Webster: Definition of ‘semi’. (2022). Available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semi

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Nick Pilcher

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Martin Cortazzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Nick Pilcher and Martin Cortazzi. The first draft of the manuscript was written by NP along with MC and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Pilcher .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Literature review study

The table below contains details of the binary representations and possibilities in the two columns on the left and in the right it contains the numbers of the key sources that conveyed or adhered to these binary representations. The details of these sources and their respective numbers are listed below.

Table: Textbook and key source binary representations

Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2014). Doing your research Project: A Guide for first-time researchers. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). 6 th edn

Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research concepts. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [with caveats for many but still using the divide as ‘useful’]

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 and 16: A guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge.

Ceglowski, D., Bacigalupa, C., & Peck, E. (2011). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of "scientifically based research." Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 679–686.

Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative Methods for Family Studies and Human Development. London, UK: Sage.

Davies, M. B., & Hughes, N. (2014).  Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative methods . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Dawson, C. (2019).  Introduction to Research Methods 5th Edition: A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking a Research Project . Robinson.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [with caveat that original qual was positivist in root but not now]

Denzin and Lincoln (2011) Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. Pp1-20

Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012).  A tale of two cultures . Princeton University Press.

Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287–305.

Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. [caveat that some qual do use causal analysis – and if you mix you abandon key assumptions associated with qualitative work]

Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30–38.

Howe, K. R. (2011). Mixed methods, mixed causes? Qualitative Inquiry, 17(2), 166–171.

Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018).  Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook . Sage publications.

Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to Social Research Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Sage.

Sandelowski, M. (1997). "To be of use": Enhancing the utility of qualitative research. Nursing Outlook, 45(3), 125–132 [caveat – does rebut many of the ideas but nevertheless outlines them as how the two are seen – e.g. of generalizability]

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 465–478.

Silverman, D. (2016). Introducing qualitative research.  Qualitative research ,  3 (3), 14–25.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998).  Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches  (Vol. 46). sage. [with the caveat that they talk about the differences as existing even though say they are not that wide]

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research. Contemporary Issues in an emerging Field. in The Sage handbook of qualitative research ,  4 , 285–300.

Torrance, H. (2008). Building confidence in qualitative research: Engaging the demands of policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(4), 507–527.

1.1 Sources in languages other than English, and brief notes regarding their focus and content

Whilst not part of the literature review study, we also consulted the outline details, abstracts and contents lists of a number of sources in languages other than English. We put brief notes about after each source. Each source, unless specifically noted, adhered to similar binary treatment of quantitative and qualitative methods and approaches as the English language sources outlined above.

1.1.1 German

Blandz, M. (2021) Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für die Soziale Arbeit : Grundlage und Anwendingen. 2 nd . edit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. – this is a multidisciplinary source that focuses mostly on quantitative and mixed methods. It follows the suggestion that a qualitative study can be a preliminary study for the main quantitative study.

Caspari, D; Klippel, F; Legutke, M. & Schram, K. (2022) Forschungsmethoden: in der Fremdsprachendidaktik; Ein Handbuch. Tübingen: Narr Franke Altempo Verlag. [Focused on foreign language teaching, details quantitative, then qualitative and then mixed; all separately]

Dōring, N. (2023) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. 6. th edit. Berlin: Springer. [Focused on the Social Sciences and humanities; as with the previous source it has separate chapters on quantitative and qualitative and a section on mixed, and contains some critical commentary]

Frankenberger, N. (Ed.) (2022) Grundlagen der Politikwissenschaft : Forschungsmethoden und Forschendes Lernen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. [Political science focused and based around distinctions between quantitative and qualitative approaches, each of which is elaborated with different methods; there is no obvious section on mixed methods]

Hussy, W; Schiener, M; Echterhoff, G. (2013) Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor. Berlin: Springer. [This book is focused on psychology and social sciences for undergraduates. It has separate parts to focus on quantitative and on qualitative and then a chapter on mixed, identifying mixed methods as an emerging trend]

Niederberger, M. & Finne, E. (Eds.) (2021) Forschungsmethoden in der Gesundsheitsfōrderung und Prävention. Berlin: Springer. [Focused on Health and wellbeing; develops the roles of quantitative, qualitative and mixed (in combinations) in multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Notes much research is exclusively quantitative and that social sciences are more qualitative or mixed. Makes the argument that the quantitative versus qualitative divide was surpassed by ‘post-positivist’ versus ‘combined’ thinking and that integrated approaches are now widely accepted]

1.1.2 Spanish

Campos-Arenas, A. (2014) Métodos mixtos de investigación. Bogota: Magisterio Editorial. [Social science focused; devoted to mixed or combined approaches in Latin American contexts]

Hernandez-Sampieri, R. & Mendoza Torres, C. P. (2018) Metodología de investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa , cualitativa y mixta. Mexico: McGrw-Hill. [Social science focused with an introduction and conclusion focused on ‘three routes to research’ that are exceptionally and thoroughly elaborated; quantitative given 8 chapters; qualitative 3 and mixed just one]

Léon-García, O. G. & Carda-Celay, I. M. (2020) Méthodos de investigación en psicología y educación: Las tradiciones cuantitativas y qualitativas. 5. th edit. Barcelona : McGraw-Hill, España. [Psychology and education focused; based on relatively clearly cut distinctinos between ‘the two traditions’ of quantitative and qualitative]

Molina Marin, G. (Ed.) (2020) Integración de métodos de investigación : Estrategias metodológicas u experiencias en salud pública. Bogotá: Universidad de Antioquia. [Public health focused; gives most attention to multi-method combinations and asks questions about the epistemological integrity of integrating different approaches]

Ortega-Sanchez, D, (Ed.) (2023) ¿Como investigar en didáctica de las ciencias sociales? Fundamentos metodológicos , técnicas e instrumentos de investigación. Barcelona: Octaedro. [Education, research, pedagogy of teaching social sciences; focused on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods in Spanish contexts]

Páramo-Reales, D. (2020) Métodos de investigación caulitativa : Fundamentos y aplicaciones . Bogota: Editorial Unimagdalena. [Social sciences: basic applications of qualitative approaches in Latin America]

Ponce, O. A. (2014) Investigación de métodos mixtos en educación, 2. nd edit. San Jaun: Publicaciones Puertoriqueñas. [Education and Pedagogy; Puerto Rican context and entirely about mixed methods]

Vasilachis de Giradino, I. (Ed.) (2009) Estrategias de investigación cauitativa. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa. [Social sciences; much detail on research design; focus exclusively on qualitative methods in Spanish contexts]

1.1.3 French

Bouchard, S. & Cyr, C. (Eds.) (2005) Reserche psycosocial pour harmoniser reserche st pratique. Quebec: Prese de la Université de Quebec. [Focused on psychology and sociology. Despite its title about ‘harmonizing’ research it is mainly focused on quantitative approaches, with a small section on qualitative and nothing on mixed approaches]

Corbière, M. & Lamviere, N. (2021) Méthodes quantitatives , qualitatives et mixtes , dans la reserche en sciences humaines et de la santé. 2. nd edit. Quebec : PU Quebec. [Focused on Humanities and health care; highlights the division between quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods]

Devin, G. (Ed.) (2016) Méthodes de recherche en relations internationals. Paris: Sciences Po. [Focused on politics and international relations; mostly wholly focused on quantitative; only a little on qualitative]

Gavard-Perret, M.L; Gotteland, D; Haon, C. & Jolibert, A. (2018) Methodologie de la recherche en sciences de gestion : Réussir son mémoire ou sa these. Paris: Pearson. [Business and management focused and geared towards thesis research; notes clear distinctions between quantitative and qualitative approaches with nothing on mixed]

Komu, S. C. S. (2020) Le receuil des méthodes en sciences sociales : Mèthodo;ogies en reserche. Manitoba: Sciences Script. [Social sciences focused; mostly quantitative methods with some attention to focus groups and participatory research]

Lepillier, O; Fournier, T; Bricas, N. & Figuié, M. (2011 ) Méthodes d’investigation de l’alimentation et des mangeurs. Versailles: Editions Quae. [Focused on nutrition, health studies and diet; details quantitative and qualitative methods and has very little on mixed]

Millette, M; Millerand, F; Myles, D. & Latako-Toth, T. (2021) Méthodes de reserches en contexte humanique , une orientation qualiificative. Montreal: PU Montreal. [Humanities focused; outlines quantitative and qualitative methods and, unusually, attends to ‘qualitative investigations in numerical contexts’ in Canada]

Moscarda, J. (2018) Faire parler les donées: Méthodologies quantitatives et qualitatives. Caen: Editions EMS. [Has a multidisciplinary focus on ‘let the data talk’; deals with quantitative methods and then qualitative methods and also mixed]

Vallerand, R. J. (2000) Méthodes de recherche en psychologie. Quebec: Gaetan Morin. [Focused on psychology; emphasis on quantitative research; brief section on qualitative; Canadian contexts]

Appendix 2: Interview study schedule

2.1 understandings of ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’.

This research project is exploratory and intends to delve into understandings of the specific terms ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ as they are perceived, used, and interpreted by researchers in very different fields. Such research is intended to shed light on the fields of quantitative and qualitative research. The idea for the research arises from a previous project where the researcher interviewed quantitative focused researchers and saw the use of qualitative and quantitative being used and interpreted very differently to how the terms are presented and understood in the research methods literature. It is expected that exploring these understandings further will add to the field by shedding light on the subtleties of how they are used and also in turn help researchers make informed decisions about the optimum approaches and methods to use in their own research.

2.2 Interview questions

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pilcher, N., Cortazzi, M. 'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices. Qual Quant 58 , 2357–2387 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4

Download citation

Accepted : 21 August 2023

Published : 30 September 2023

Issue Date : June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• Assumptions
• Disciplines
• Semi-structured interviews
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: Comparing the Methods and Strategies for Education Research

No matter the field of study, all research can be divided into two distinct methodologies: qualitative and quantitative research. Both methodologies offer education researchers important insights.

Education research assesses problems in policy, practices, and curriculum design, and it helps administrators identify solutions. Researchers can conduct small-scale studies to learn more about topics related to instruction or larger-scale ones to gain insight into school systems and investigate how to improve student outcomes.

Education research often relies on the quantitative methodology. Quantitative research in education provides numerical data that can prove or disprove a theory, and administrators can easily share the number-based results with other schools and districts. And while the research may speak to a relatively small sample size, educators and researchers can scale the results from quantifiable data to predict outcomes in larger student populations and groups.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research in Education: Definitions

Although there are many overlaps in the objectives of qualitative and quantitative research in education, researchers must understand the fundamental functions of each methodology in order to design and carry out an impactful research study. In addition, they must understand the differences that set qualitative and quantitative research apart in order to determine which methodology is better suited to specific education research topics.

Generate Hypotheses with Qualitative Research

Qualitative research focuses on thoughts, concepts, or experiences. The data collected often comes in narrative form and concentrates on unearthing insights that can lead to testable hypotheses. Educators use qualitative research in a study’s exploratory stages to uncover patterns or new angles.

Form Strong Conclusions with Quantitative Research

Quantitative research in education and other fields of inquiry is expressed in numbers and measurements. This type of research aims to find data to confirm or test a hypothesis.

Differences in Data Collection Methods

Keeping in mind the main distinction in qualitative vs. quantitative research—gathering descriptive information as opposed to numerical data—it stands to reason that there are different ways to acquire data for each research methodology. While certain approaches do overlap, the way researchers apply these collection techniques depends on their goal.

Interviews, for example, are common in both modes of research. An interview with students that features open-ended questions intended to reveal ideas and beliefs around attendance will provide qualitative data. This data may reveal a problem among students, such as a lack of access to transportation, that schools can help address.

An interview can also include questions posed to receive numerical answers. A case in point: how many days a week do students have trouble getting to school, and of those days, how often is a transportation-related issue the cause? In this example, qualitative and quantitative methodologies can lead to similar conclusions, but the research will differ in intent, design, and form.

Taking a look at behavioral observation, another common method used for both qualitative and quantitative research, qualitative data may consider a variety of factors, such as facial expressions, verbal responses, and body language.

On the other hand, a quantitative approach will create a coding scheme for certain predetermined behaviors and observe these in a quantifiable manner.

Qualitative Research Methods

• Case Studies : Researchers conduct in-depth investigations into an individual, group, event, or community, typically gathering data through observation and interviews.
• Focus Groups : A moderator (or researcher) guides conversation around a specific topic among a group of participants.
• Ethnography : Researchers interact with and observe a specific societal or ethnic group in their real-life environment.
• Interviews : Researchers ask participants questions to learn about their perspectives on a particular subject.

Quantitative Research Methods

• Questionnaires and Surveys : Participants receive a list of questions, either closed-ended or multiple choice, which are directed around a particular topic.
• Experiments : Researchers control and test variables to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships.
• Observations : Researchers look at quantifiable patterns and behavior.
• Structured Interviews : Using a predetermined structure, researchers ask participants a fixed set of questions to acquire numerical data.

Choosing a Research Strategy

When choosing which research strategy to employ for a project or study, a number of considerations apply. One key piece of information to help determine whether to use a qualitative vs. quantitative research method is which phase of development the study is in.

For example, if a project is in its early stages and requires more research to find a testable hypothesis, qualitative research methods might prove most helpful. On the other hand, if the research team has already established a hypothesis or theory, quantitative research methods will provide data that can validate the theory or refine it for further testing.

It’s also important to understand a project’s research goals. For instance, do researchers aim to produce findings that reveal how to best encourage student engagement in math? Or is the goal to determine how many students are passing geometry? These two scenarios require distinct sets of data, which will determine the best methodology to employ.

In some situations, studies will benefit from a mixed-methods approach. Using the goals in the above example, one set of data could find the percentage of students passing geometry, which would be quantitative. The research team could also lead a focus group with the students achieving success to discuss which techniques and teaching practices they find most helpful, which would produce qualitative data.

Learn How to Put Education Research into Action

Those with an interest in learning how to harness research to develop innovative ideas to improve education systems may want to consider pursuing a doctoral degree. American University’s School of Education online offers a Doctor of Education (EdD) in Education Policy and Leadership that prepares future educators, school administrators, and other education professionals to become leaders who effect positive changes in schools. Courses such as Applied Research Methods I: Enacting Critical Research provides students with the techniques and research skills needed to begin conducting research exploring new ways to enhance education. Learn more about American’ University’s EdD in Education Policy and Leadership .

What’s the Difference Between Educational Equity and Equality?

EdD vs. PhD in Education: Requirements, Career Outlook, and Salary

Top Education Technology Jobs for Doctorate in Education Graduates

American University, EdD in Education Policy and Leadership

Edutopia, “2019 Education Research Highlights”

Formplus, “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Data: 15 Key Differences and Similarities”

iMotion, “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: What Is What?”

Scribbr, “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research”

Simply Psychology, “What’s the Difference Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research?”

Typeform, “A Simple Guide to Qualitative and Quantitative Research”

Request Information

AU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our  privacy policy .

Field Experiments in sociology

Table of Contents

Last Updated on February 24, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Field Experiments take place in  real-life settings such as a classroom, the work place or even the high street. Field experiments are much more common in sociology than laboratory experiments. In fact sociologists hardly ever use lab experiments because the artificial environment of the laboratory is so far removed from real life that most sociologists believe that the results gained from such experiments tell us very little about how respondents would actually act in real life.

It is actually quite easy to set up a field experiment. If you wanted to measure the effectiveness of different teaching methods on educational performance in a school for example, all you would need to do is to get teachers to administer a short test to measure current performance levels, and then get them to change one aspect of their teaching for one class, or for a sample of some pupils, but not for the others, for a period of time (say one term) and then measure and compare the results of all pupils at the end.

The advantages of Field Experiments over Lab Experiments

Better external validity – The big advantage which field experiments obviously have better external validity than lab experiments, because they take place in normally occurring social settings.

Larger Scale Settings – Practically it is possible to do field experiments in large institutions – in schools or workplaces in which thousands of people interact for example, which isn’t possible in laboratory experiments.

The disadvantages of Field Experiments

It is not possible to control variables as closely as with laboratory experiments – With the Rosenthal and Jacobson experiment, for example we simply don’t know what else might have influenced the ‘spurting group’ besides ‘higher teacher expectations’.

Practical Problems – Access is likely to be more of a problem with lab experiments. Schools and workplaces might be reluctant to allow researchers in.

Rosenthal and Jacobson’s 1968 Field Experiment

The aim of this research was to measure the effect of high teacher expectation on the educational performance of pupils.

Rosenthal and Jacobsen concluded that higher teacher expectations were responsible for this difference in achievement.

Limitations of the Experiment

Ethical problems : while the spurters seem to have benefited from this study, the other 80% of pupils did not, in fact it is possible that they were harmed because of the teachers giving disproportionate amounts of attention to the spurting group. Given that child rights and child welfare are more central to education today it is unlikely that such an experiment would be allowed to take place.

Reliability is a problem : while the research design was relatively simple and thus easy to repeat (in fact within five years of the original study this was repeated 242 times) the exact conditions are not possible to repeat – given differences between schools and the type and mixture of pupils who attend different schools.

Seven Examples of Field Experiments in Sociology

Are Chinese Teaching Methods the Best?  – A Field Experiment in ‘tough teaching methods’ in the UK conducted in 2015.

Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle 

Share this:

7 thoughts on “field experiments in sociology”, leave a reply cancel reply, discover more from revisesociology.

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze.

Quantitative data is information about quantities, and therefore numbers, and qualitative data is descriptive, and regards phenomenon which can be observed but not measured, such as language.

• Quantitative research collects numerical data and analyzes it using statistical methods. The aim is to produce objective, empirical data that can be measured and expressed numerically. Quantitative research is often used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and make predictions.
• Qualitative research gathers non-numerical data (words, images, sounds) to explore subjective experiences and attitudes, often via observation and interviews. It aims to produce detailed descriptions and uncover new insights about the studied phenomenon.

On This Page:

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality.

Qualitative data is non-numerical data, such as text, video, photographs, or audio recordings. This type of data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis.

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 2)

Interest in qualitative data came about as the result of the dissatisfaction of some psychologists (e.g., Carl Rogers) with the scientific study of psychologists such as behaviorists (e.g., Skinner ).

Since psychologists study people, the traditional approach to science is not seen as an appropriate way of carrying out research since it fails to capture the totality of human experience and the essence of being human.  Exploring participants’ experiences is known as a phenomenological approach (re: Humanism ).

Qualitative research is primarily concerned with meaning, subjectivity, and lived experience. The goal is to understand the quality and texture of people’s experiences, how they make sense of them, and the implications for their lives.

Qualitative research aims to understand the social reality of individuals, groups, and cultures as nearly as possible as participants feel or live it. Thus, people and groups are studied in their natural setting.

Some examples of qualitative research questions are provided, such as what an experience feels like, how people talk about something, how they make sense of an experience, and how events unfold for people.

Research following a qualitative approach is exploratory and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ a particular phenomenon, or behavior, operates as it does in a particular context. It can be used to generate hypotheses and theories from the data.

Qualitative Methods

There are different types of qualitative research methods, including diary accounts, in-depth interviews , documents, focus groups , case study research , and ethnography .

The results of qualitative methods provide a deep understanding of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world.

The researcher has several methods for collecting empirical materials, ranging from the interview to direct observation, to the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the use of visual materials or personal experience. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 14)

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

Interview transcripts : Verbatim records of what participants said during an interview or focus group. They allow researchers to identify common themes and patterns, and draw conclusions based on the data. Interview transcripts can also be useful in providing direct quotes and examples to support research findings.

Observations : The researcher typically takes detailed notes on what they observe, including any contextual information, nonverbal cues, or other relevant details. The resulting observational data can be analyzed to gain insights into social phenomena, such as human behavior, social interactions, and cultural practices.

Unstructured interviews : generate qualitative data through the use of open questions.  This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words.  This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.

Diaries or journals : Written accounts of personal experiences or reflections.

Notice that qualitative data could be much more than just words or text. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, and so on, can be considered qualitative data. Visual data can be used to understand behaviors, environments, and social interactions.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative research is endlessly creative and interpretive. The researcher does not just leave the field with mountains of empirical data and then easily write up his or her findings.

Qualitative interpretations are constructed, and various techniques can be used to make sense of the data, such as content analysis, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), or discourse analysis .

For example, thematic analysis is a qualitative approach that involves identifying implicit or explicit ideas within the data. Themes will often emerge once the data has been coded .

Key Features

• Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the field, in natural surroundings. The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
• Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
• The qualitative researcher is an integral part of the data; without the active participation of the researcher, no data exists.
• The study’s design evolves during the research and can be adjusted or changed as it progresses. For the qualitative researcher, there is no single reality. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.
• The theory is data-driven and emerges as part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

• Because of the time and costs involved, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples from large-scale data sets.
• The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards of reliability and validity. For example, because of the central role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not possible to replicate qualitative studies.
• Also, contexts, situations, events, conditions, and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent, nor can generalizations be made to a wider context than the one studied with confidence.
• The time required for data collection, analysis, and interpretation is lengthy. Analysis of qualitative data is difficult, and expert knowledge of an area is necessary to interpret qualitative data. Great care must be taken when doing so, for example, looking for mental illness symptoms.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

• Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider’s view of the field. This allows the researcher to find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic inquiries.
• Qualitative descriptions can be important in suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects, and dynamic processes.
• Qualitative analysis allows for ambiguities/contradictions in the data, which reflect social reality (Denscombe, 2010).
• Qualitative research uses a descriptive, narrative style; this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research involves the process of objectively collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest.

The goals of quantitative research are to test causal relationships between variables , make predictions, and generalize results to wider populations.

Quantitative researchers aim to establish general laws of behavior and phenomenon across different settings/contexts. Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Quantitative Methods

Experiments typically yield quantitative data, as they are concerned with measuring things.  However, other research methods, such as controlled observations and questionnaires , can produce both quantitative information.

For example, a rating scale or closed questions on a questionnaire would generate quantitative data as these produce either numerical data or data that can be put into categories (e.g., “yes,” “no” answers).

Experimental methods limit how research participants react to and express appropriate social behavior.

Findings are, therefore, likely to be context-bound and simply a reflection of the assumptions that the researcher brings to the investigation.

There are numerous examples of quantitative data in psychological research, including mental health. Here are a few examples:

Another example is the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR), a self-report questionnaire widely used to assess adult attachment styles .

The ECR provides quantitative data that can be used to assess attachment styles and predict relationship outcomes.

Neuroimaging data : Neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI and fMRI, provide quantitative data on brain structure and function.

This data can be analyzed to identify brain regions involved in specific mental processes or disorders.

For example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) is a clinician-administered questionnaire widely used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms in individuals.

The BDI consists of 21 questions, each scored on a scale of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. 

Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistics help us turn quantitative data into useful information to help with decision-making. We can use statistics to summarize our data, describing patterns, relationships, and connections. Statistics can be descriptive or inferential.

Descriptive statistics help us to summarize our data. In contrast, inferential statistics are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups of data (such as intervention and control groups in a randomized control study).

• Quantitative researchers try to control extraneous variables by conducting their studies in the lab.
• The research aims for objectivity (i.e., without bias) and is separated from the data.
• The design of the study is determined before it begins.
• For the quantitative researcher, the reality is objective, exists separately from the researcher, and can be seen by anyone.
• Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Limitations of Quantitative Research

• Context: Quantitative experiments do not take place in natural settings. In addition, they do not allow participants to explain their choices or the meaning of the questions they may have for those participants (Carr, 1994).
• Researcher expertise: Poor knowledge of the application of statistical analysis may negatively affect analysis and subsequent interpretation (Black, 1999).
• Variability of data quantity: Large sample sizes are needed for more accurate analysis. Small-scale quantitative studies may be less reliable because of the low quantity of data (Denscombe, 2010). This also affects the ability to generalize study findings to wider populations.
• Confirmation bias: The researcher might miss observing phenomena because of focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather than on the theory of hypothesis generation.

Advantages of Quantitative Research

• Scientific objectivity: Quantitative data can be interpreted with statistical analysis, and since statistics are based on the principles of mathematics, the quantitative approach is viewed as scientifically objective and rational (Carr, 1994; Denscombe, 2010).
• Useful for testing and validating already constructed theories.
• Rapid analysis: Sophisticated software removes much of the need for prolonged data analysis, especially with large volumes of data involved (Antonius, 2003).
• Replication: Quantitative data is based on measured values and can be checked by others because numerical data is less open to ambiguities of interpretation.
• Hypotheses can also be tested because of statistical analysis (Antonius, 2003).

Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS . Sage.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics . Sage.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3, 77–101.

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research : what method for nursing? Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4) , 716-721.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research. McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln. Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4) , 364.

Minichiello, V. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Longman Cheshire.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage

Further Information

• Mixed methods research
• Designing qualitative research
• Methods of data collection and analysis
• Introduction to quantitative and qualitative research
• Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
• Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
• Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach
• Using the framework method for the analysis of
• Qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
• Content Analysis
• Grounded Theory
• Thematic Analysis

Canvas | University | Ask a Librarian

• Library Homepage
• Arrendale Library

Empirical & Non-Empirical Research

• Quantitative vs. Qualitative
• Empirical Research

What's the Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative?

Distinguishing quantitative & qualitative methods, word clues to identify methods.

• Reference Works for Social Sciences Research
• What is Non-Empirical Research?
• Contact Us!

 Call us at 706-776-0111

  Chat with a Librarian

  Send Us Email

  Library Hours

What’s the Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative Methods?

From: Suter, W. N. (2012). Qualitative Data, Analysis, and Design. In  Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach . SAGE Publications, Inc., www.galileo.usg.edu/redirect?inst=pie1&url=https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384443

The words in this table can be used to evaluate whether an article tends more toward the quantitative or qualitative domain. Well-written article abstracts will contain words like these to succinctly characterize the article's content.

Adapted from: McMillan, J. H. (2012).  Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer  (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Search SAGE Research Methods for resources about qualitative methods

Search SAGE Research Methods for resources about quantitative methods

• << Previous: Empirical Research
• Next: Reference Works for Social Sciences Research >>
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2024 12:04 PM
• URL: https://library.piedmont.edu/empirical-research
• Ebooks & Online Video
• New Materials
• Renew Checkouts
• Faculty Resources
• Library Friends
• Library Services
• Our Mission
• Library History
• Ask a Librarian!
• Making Citations
• Working Online

Arrendale Library Piedmont University 706-776-0111

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Field Experiments

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Experiments look for the effect that manipulated variables (independent variables) have on measured variables (dependent variables), i.e. causal effects.

Field experiments are conducted in a natural setting (e.g. at a sports event or on public transport), as opposed to the artificial environment created in laboratory experiments. Some variables cannot be controlled due to the unpredictability of these real-life settings (e.g. the public interacting with participants), but an independent variable will still be altered for a dependent variable to be measured against.

Evaluation of field experiments:

- Field experiments generally yield results with higher ecological validity than laboratory experiments, as the natural settings will relate to real life.

- Demand characteristics are less of an issue with field experiments than laboratory experiments (i.e. participants are less likely to adjust their natural behaviour according to their interpretation of the study’s purpose, as they might not know they are in a study).

- Extraneous variables could confound results due to the reduced control experimenters have over them in non-artificial environments, which makes it difficult to find truly causal effects between independent and dependent variables.

- Ethical principles have to be considered, such as the lack of informed consent; if participants are not made aware of their participation in an experiment, privacy must be respected during observations and participants must be debriefed appropriately when observations come to an end.

- Precise replication of the natural environment of field experiments is understandably difficult, so they have poor reliability, unlike laboratory experiments where the exact conditions can be recreated.

- Field experiments are more susceptible to sample bias, as participants are often not randomly allocated to experimental conditions (i.e. participants’ groups are already pre-set rather than randomly assigned).

• Field experiments

You might also like

Types of experiment: overview, our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

Quantitative and Qualitative Field Interviewers

African population and health research center.

• Entry Level
• Kakamega County
• Posted 2 days ago
• Closes: September 6, 2024

About Company

4 Active Jobs ( View all )

• Exp.: Some Exp. a Plus
• Min. Education level: High School
• Specialism: Any Field of Study / Social Sciences
• Deadline: Friday, September 6, 2024

Vacancy Description

The African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) is a premier research-to-policy institution, generating evidence, strengthening research and related capacity in the African research and development ecosystem, and engaging policy to inform action on health and development. APHRC seeks to drive change by developing strong African research leadership and promoting evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) across sub-Saharan Africa.

The APHRC invites applications for  Quantitative and Qualitative Field Interviewers  in its  Evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of a gender transformative parenting intervention in improving the outcomes of children of adolescent parents  project to support the quantitative and qualitative data collection for the study. The overall objective of this study is to promote positive early child development, prioritize primary prevention of childhood development problems and early intervention, promote positive gender roles and healthy gender equitable relationships from an early age, promote parental mental health and well-being and reduce child maltreatment As such, the project will adopt mixed methods (quantitative-qualitative) approach.

Quantitative Field Interviewers

 duties and responsibilities.

• Mobilize study participants in accordance with predefined criteria outlined in the study guidelines
• Adhere to protocols and guidelines for data collection, ensuring ethical conduct and data protection throughout the research process
• Conduct quantitative in-person interviews with study participants following the provided questionnaire and protocols
• Ensure accurate and complete data collection during interviews, paying attention to detail and maintaining confidentiality
• Edit and submit collected data for daily cross-checking and verification by the designated team leader
• Fill in and submit daily field reports/timesheets accurately and in a timely manner
• Attend all scheduled training sessions and progress meetings as required by the project team
• Maintain the safety and responsible handling of all study tools and equipment provided for the interviews
• Assist the research team in other project-related activities as needed
• Any other tasks assigned by the supervisor to further the project’s objectives

Minimum Qualifications

• Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) with a minimum grade of C Plain or equivalent
• Fluency in both Swahili, English and Luhya languages
• Experience in electronic data collection methods like SurveyCTO or Open Data Kit (ODK) is highly desirable
• Strong interpersonal and communication skills, both spoken and written
• Ability to work independently and as part of a team, demonstrating reliability and accountability
• Must be a resident of Kakamega County (Shinyalu and Malava sub-Counties)
• Previous experience in conducting quantitative interviews

Qualitative Field Interviewers

Duties and responsibilities.

• Moderate/ facilitate qualitative interviews with various stakeholders at county and community levels
• Record interviews, take notes and compile comprehensive qualitative interview debriefing notes
• Hold debrief discussions and exploration of ideas between the interviewers and the investigators
• Prepare data collection progress updates and reports
• Any other related activities assigned by the supervisor and project managers
• Holder of a Bachelor’s degree preferably in the Social or any relevant discipline
• Previous experience conducting qualitative interviews
• Proficient in English, Kiswahili and Luhya languages (verbal and written).
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Should be available to provide any clarification on the translation when needed to do so
• Must be a resident of the study County Kakamega County (Shinyalu and Malava sub- Counties).

Be the first to know of similar vacancies by joining one of our Live Feed Channels below:

Application guidelines.

Application documents should include:

• Cover letter indicating your county of residence.
• CV with contact details of three referees.

To apply, kindly submit your application on our Applicant Tracking System (ATS) by 6th September 2024 under the QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE FIELD INTERVIEWERS, job posting.

PLEASE NOTE: APPLICANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY PAYMENTS TO ANYONE DURING ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS.

Special Notice

APHRC and Flexi Personnel are equal opportunity employers that are committed to creating a diverse and inclusive workplace. All employment decisions are made on the basis of qualifications and organizational needs. Reasonable accommodation may be provided to applicants with disabilities upon request, to support their participation in the recruitment process.

View more jobs at APHRC →

Unlock your dream career with our expert cv makeover, our professional cv revamp service will give your job search the edge it needs. crafted by industry experts, your new cv will showcase your talents and land you more interviews..

Upgrade Your Career Today from as low as KES. 600

Not for you? Share in your Circle...

Similar opportunities, hardware engineer attaché at synnefa, claims internship at incourage, geospatial internship at unops, finance internship at burhani engineers, laboratory technologist at sishol healthcare solutions, nurse at sishol healthcare solutions, pharmaceutical technologist at sishol healthcare solutions, more kakamega county opportunities, logistics technician at m-gas.

Bungoma, Eldoret, Kakamega, Kerugoya, Kiambu, Kisii, Kisumu, Kitale, Limuru, Machakos, Meru, Migori, Nairobi, Naivasha, Nakuru, Ngong, Thika

Motorized Sales Technical Representative at M-Gas

Technical sales representative at m-gas.

We always do our best to keep scammers out and only post real opportunities so that you stand a chance in every application you make. It's advisable that YOU also do your due diligence before and after Applying for any vacancy. NEVER pay to facilitate your Hiring Process at any stage, no legit employer/recruiter will ask you to pay for anything.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups
• Message this member
• Add this member as a connection

Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Create a Candidate Account

Create an applicant account.

Are you an Employer or Recruiter? Sign up Here

• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

Implementation of health-promoting retail initiatives in the Healthier Choices in Supermarkets Study—qualitative perspectives from a feasibility study

• Katrine Sidenius Duus   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1630-3132 1 ,
• Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3621-6682 1 &
• Rikke Fredenslund Krølner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4928-4310 1  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  349 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Improving food environments like supermarkets has the potential to affect customers’ health positively. Scholars suggest researchers and retailers collaborate closely on implementing and testing such health-promoting interventions, but knowledge of the implementation of such interventions is limited. We explore the implementation of four health-promoting food retail initiatives selected and developed by a partnership between a research institution, a large retail group, and a non-governmental organisation.

The four initiatives included downsizing of bags for pick’n’ mix sweets and soda bottles at the check-out registers, shelf tags promoting healthier breakfast cereal options, and replacing a complimentary bun with a banana offered to children. The initiatives were implemented for 6 weeks (or longer if the store manager allowed it) in one store in Copenhagen, Denmark. Data were collected through observations, informal interviews with customers, and semi-structured interviews with retailers. We conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts and field notes inspired by process evaluation concepts and included quantitative summaries of selected data.

Two out of four initiatives were not implemented as intended. The implementation was delayed due to delivery issues, which also resulted in soda bottles not being downsized as intended. The maintenance of the shelf tags decreased over time. Retailers expressed different levels of acceptability towards the initiatives, with a preference for the complimentary banana for children. This was also the only initiative noticed by customers with both positive and negative responses. Barriers and facilitators of implementation fell into three themes: Health is not the number one priority, general capacity of retailers, and influence of customers and other stakeholders on store operation.

Conclusions

The retailers’ interests, priorities, and general capacity influenced the initiative implementation. Retailers’ acceptability of the initiatives was mixed despite their involvement in the pre-intervention phase. Our study also suggests that customer responses towards health-promoting initiatives, as well as cooperation with suppliers and manufacturers in the development phase, may be determining to successful implementation. Future studies should explore strategies to facilitate implementation, which can be applied prior to and during the intervention.

Peer Review reports

What we eat affects our health and well-being [ 1 ]. Diet is associated with obesity, cancers [ 2 ], and mental well-being [ 3 ], and a healthy diet has been associated with lower all-cause mortality [ 4 ]. One important factor in improving diet is to create a food environment that supports a healthy diet [ 5 , 6 ]. In modern societies, such as Denmark, supermarkets are the main source of food [ 7 ]. Supermarkets therefore hold a significant influence on what food we buy and potentially also eat [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Studies report associations between the concentration of supermarkets and overweight and obesity in the neighbourhood [ 10 ] and between the healthfulness of supermarkets and people’s diets [ 11 , 12 ]. Moreover, unhealthy food and beverage products are promoted more often than healthy products and beverages in, for example, supermarkets [ 9 , 13 , 14 ]. This indicates a need to explore how and if it is possible to implement health promotion initiatives in supermarkets and whether customers respond to such initiatives as intended.

Studies show that health-promoting interventions in supermarkets can affect customers to purchase more healthy products [ 7 , 9 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Reviews and a meta-analysis have concluded that the most effective initiative in supermarket settings is price changes—the evidence points to the positive effects of reduced prices to increase the purchase of healthier products, especially fruit and vegetables [ 7 , 17 ]. Even though price reductions seem to be effective, they seem more challenging to implement due to retailers’ drive for profit and low preference for financing such price cuts [ 7 , 18 ]. There is some evidence that nudges in terms of product information and positioning, as well as altering the number of available products, can impact what products are being purchased [ 15 , 16 ]. However, the quality of this evidence is low. Overall, most of the studies that have explored the effect of interventions in supermarkets have been conducted in the USA and other high-income countries [ 15 , 16 ], in controlled settings, or applied a weak study design, such as non-randomised studies [ 16 , 17 ]. To our knowledge, only a few studies have been conducted in Denmark [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. These studies represent different designs and types of interventions: reformulation of private-label products to reduce calorie content [ 24 ], informational claims to promote low-salt foods [ 23 ], nudges via signs to promote sales of fruit and vegetables [ 22 ], positioning (shelf-space management) of dairy products [ 20 ], replacement of sugar confectionery with fruit and healthy snacks at the checkout [ 19 ], discount on fruit and vegetables combined with space management [ 25 ] and structural changes in supermarkets and education of supermarket employees as part of a multicomponent intervention [ 21 ] (the three latter studies are reporting from the same project). All but one study [ 23 ] found an effect of the applied intervention strategies, although mostly small or modest. This calls for more studies in real-life settings and investigations of why some interventions have the desired effect while others do not. Lack of effect may be explained by 1) customers not noticing or finding the initiatives relevant [ 19 , 23 ], 2) customers buying other products instead of or additionally to promoted intervention products [ 20 , 24 ], 3) the shelf organising effect [ 20 ], or 4) theory fail in regards to customer behaviour [ 22 ].

Several studies have explored facilitators and barriers to the implementation of health-promoting interventions in supermarkets. Reviews show that implementation is supported if the retailer is receptive to innovation, feels responsible for community health, and receives financial support or subsidies [ 26 ]. Furthermore, implementation is supported if the intervention provides the retailers with knowledge of health promotion and business skills [ 26 , 27 ]. Other facilitators include compatibility with context and customers’ needs, positive customer responses to the initiative, the prospect of improved public image, establishment of partnerships, low retailer effort requirements, and increased profit or sales [ 26 , 27 ]. Health-promoting interventions in supermarkets are hindered by high customer demand for unhealthy products and lower demand for healthy products, constraints of store infrastructure, challenges in product supply, high staff turnover, and lack of time [ 26 , 27 ]. Other barriers are doubt regarding changing customers’ behaviour, poor communication between collaborators [ 26 ], high running costs, and risk of spoilage [ 26 , 27 ].

Middle et al. [ 26 ] conclude that the underlying mechanism of barriers and facilitators of implementation is the (mis)alignment of retailers’ and intervention researchers’ interests. The authors, therefore, suggest a close collaboration between intervention researchers and retailers to work towards an alignment of interests and resolving or avoiding misalignment, which is supported by Gupta et al. [ 27 ]. However, knowledge of how such collaborative efforts affect the implementation of healthy food retail interventions is warranted.

The aim of this study is to explore the implementation, acceptability, and feasibility of four different health-promoting food retail initiatives to increase customers’ purchase of healthy food and beverages, which were selected and developed together with food retailers: 1) Promotion of healthier breakfast cereals and products using shelf tags, 2) downsizing of sodas sold at the checkout desks, 3) downsizing of bags for the pick’n’ mix sweets, 4) replacement of a complimentary bun for children with a banana. The study has three research objectives:

To document the implementation and sustainment of the initiatives over time

To explore the retailers’ and customers’ responses to and acceptability of the initiatives

To investigate barriers and facilitators of implementation and sustainment of the initiatives.

Setting and the initiatives

This study was conducted in Denmark during 2020 and 2021, 2 years that involved two major societal events, first the coronavirus disease pandemic and later the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. Both events heavily influenced the circumstances of everyday life including opportunities for conducting research and running businesses. The specific influences on this study will be unfolded later in the findings and discussion sections.

In this study, we collaborated with the retailer Salling Group, which holds 34.2% of the market share of grocery retailers in Denmark [ 28 ]. Salling Group is owned by the Salling Foundations and has no shareholders—all profits go to reinvestment in the business and donations to sports (amateur and professional), charity, education, and research. Salling Group owns three national supermarket chains: føtex, Netto and Bilka, alongside other businesses. For the feasibility test, we collaborated with føtex, which owns over 100 stores all over Denmark, including 23 stores called føtex food. føtex (except føtex food) offers both groceries and many different non-food products (e.g. textiles, cosmetics, toys, electronics, and home accessories).

The initiatives were selected and developed by a partnership, including a group of researchers at the National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, consultants from the Danish Cancer Society, and employees at the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) department in Salling Group, the marketing department at føtex, and two store managers (hereafter referred collectively to as ‘the retailers’) over approximately 2 years. The process involved in-person meetings, desk research (the use of existing material [ 29 ]), visits to the test store, and a prototype test of three suggested initiatives. The researchers initiated the collaboration and were responsible for designing the research study and data collection and analyses. The retailers hosted the site of the feasibility test, contributed to the selection and development of initiatives and co-managed the practical part of the study. The Danish Cancer Society was recruited by the research project to develop the initiatives. A detailed description of the collaboration and development process is reported elsewhere (Duus et al.  unpublished ).

The feasibility test ended up including four initiatives: 1) Promotion of healthier breakfast cereals and products using shelf tags, 2) downsizing of soda sold at the checkout desks, 3) downsizing of bags for the pick’n’ mix sweets, 4) replacement of a complimentary bun for children with a banana (suggested by the retailers). The initiatives were based on a compromise between the willingness of the retailers and the interest and ideas of the remaining partners rather than on what the literature suggests are the most effective strategies (Duus et al.  unpublished ). Detailed descriptions of the initiatives and the rationale behind them are found in Table 1 .

The prototype test showed that 1) It was important to have a sign informing the customers about the initiative that offered a free banana to children instead of the usual free bun to create a better understanding of the changed offer; 2) Promotional shelf tags needed weekly maintenance as some would fall off; 3) It was difficult to sustain an initiative promoting ready-to-serve salads and ready-to-cook vegetables next to different fresh meats, as it met resistance among the staff due to being an additional task and led to more product waste (Customers did not expect to find these products next to the meat and therefore might not notice them). The learnings from the prototype test led to modifications of the implementation plan and the discard of the latter initiative. The prototype test also made us aware of how quickly the selection of food offered and the layout of the store changed over time, which the researcher, therefore, paid extra attention to during subsequent data collection. Moreover, the researcher made sure to update the list of products that should have a shelf tag a few weeks before the implementation to include new products offered.

The føtex marketing department developed a script to inform the staff at the test store about the feasibility test, explaining and showing each initiative and the aim of the study overall. This was sent to the store manager after being reviewed by the researchers. The store manager was responsible for informing all relevant staff about the implementation and maintenance of the initiatives. The føtex marketing department also made sure to inform the relevant suppliers. Employees at the test store and brand staff from a brewery (who stock the coolers at the check-out desks) implemented the initiatives in the store. The research group did not correct or maintain the initiatives in the store after they were launched; however, the researchers monitored it and reported back to the retailers, either at meetings or by email.

Overall study design

The four initiatives were implemented in the test store for 6 weeks (or longer if the store manager allowed it) starting in September 2021. A føtex store in central Copenhagen (the capital city of Denmark) was chosen as the test store. This decision was made for pragmatic reasons, as the research institute is based in Copenhagen, and based on Salling Group’s decision as it offered their new store layout, which all stores were in the process of being converted to (it was the same store as where the prototype test was conducted).

We designed a qualitative study involving participant observations and interviews to evaluate the feasibility of the initiatives. The methods were designed to explore the partnership and collaboration (the aim of another publication [Duus et al. Unpublished ]), as well as the implementation of the initiatives [ 30 ]. In the design of this study, we were inspired by McGill et al.'s (2020) two-phase framework of qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective. This framework suggests an evaluation that looks at changes over time, starting with phase 1, the static system description and hypothesis generation about how the system might change when the intervention is introduced, followed by phase 2, an adaptive evaluation approach to the system undergoing change which follows emerging findings [ 31 ].

Data collection

In-store observations.

During October and November 2020, we mapped the store layout and customer flow in the test store as part of the static system description. Over 3 weeks, three research assistants performed 12 participant observations of 1005 min in total. The observations followed an observation guide which covered 1) the physical setting (e.g. the layout, placement of products, signs, and pictures); 2) the people (e.g. who are the customers? Are people shopping alone or together with others? How do they move around the store? What are the staff doing?) and 3) short interviews with customers (if possible) about their shopping at the particular store, and their thoughts about the layout of the store. The research teams’ access to the store was approved by the store manager, and research assistants wore a key chain with a sign showing their name and affiliation during the observations. During this data collection period, it was made mandatory to use face masks in supermarkets due to the coronavirus disease pandemic. As the implementation was delayed to approximately 1 year after this static description was completed, one participant observation in the test store was performed at the end of August 2021, just before initiative implementation, to document any major changes in the store layout and selection. Key lessons from these observations about the test supermarket and customers’ behaviour in the store included knowledge on 1) the route around the store, 2) the different times spent at the store, 3) interactions with objects (e.g. products and phones), 4) interactions with children, 5) behaviour of the staff, and 6) sensory impression (Additional file 1). These lessons informed our following data generation and assisted in contextualising our analysis.

The first author monitored the implementation process through participant observations of status meetings ( n  = 2) and correspondence via email and phone with the store manager and the contact person at føtex. In-store participant observations were conducted during and after the feasibility test period, September 2021–May 2022 ( n  = 25 ~ 1795 min in total; see Additional file 2). These observations focused on documenting the presence of the initiatives as well as customers’ and staff’s responses to the initiatives. Access to the store was once again approved by the store manager, and the researcher wore a key chain. During the participant observations in-store, we conducted informal interviews with customers (see Additional file 2 for examples of questions), which lasted a maximum of 5 min each. The first author would approach people and ask if they were interested in answering a brief question. She introduced herself by her first name, where she worked and explained she was doing a research project about shopping patterns. The participant observations were documented by taking notes and photos. Handwritten notes were digitalised and written down at the first chance after leaving the store.

Qualitative interviews

Between November 2021 and February 2023, the first author conducted four semi-structured interviews with retailers ( n  = 3) who had been involved in the study (Table 2 ) to explore their views on the initiatives and the implementation process. Interview guides were used in all interviews alongside different prompts (e.g. timelines and documents). Interview guides were tailored to each participant’s specific role and involvement in the development and implementation of the initiatives. Besides questions related to the initiatives and the implementation effort, the guides included questions about the informants’ background and motivation for the project (personally and professionally), their view on their role and scope for action (individually and organisationally) and their perception of the collaboration with the other organisations. After the participants’ consent was given verbally right before the interview, the interviews were recorded and later transcribed verbatim.

To explore the level of implementation (research objective I), all field notes and photos taken during and after the feasibility test were reviewed to assess whether the initiatives were present and to what degree (e.g. x out of x possible tags).

To explore the perception of the initiatives among employees and customers (research objective II) and identify barriers and facilitators for implementing the initiatives (research objective III), we followed a thematic analysis inspired by Braun and Clarke [ 32 ]. Firstly, field notes and interview transcripts were read thoroughly and openly coded, by writing keywords in the margin of the material, with a focus on the two research objectives. After initial coding, the codes were summarised into broader themes, by writing them into a document with short descriptions and revised according to data excerpts and the full empirical material. The themes drew on the process evaluation concepts: acceptability, responsiveness [ 30 ], motivation, general capacity to implement [ 33 ] and commercial viability [ 34 ]. Lastly, the themes were named, and the final analysis was written up.

We have structured the presentation of study findings as follows: Firstly, we present the implementation of the initiatives overall. Secondly, we present the implementation of each initiative, customers’ responses to them, and the retailers’ perspectives. Lastly, we present the overall facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the initiatives.

Implementation of the initiatives

The implementation of the initiatives was challenged. Firstly, we found that not all the preparations for the implementation were finished in time for the scheduled day. On the scheduled day, the retailer decided to push back the implementation by 1 week. The main reasons were that there had been some misunderstandings around the ordering of the smaller sodas. It was informed that the smaller soda would be a 330 ml can instead of the 375 ml bottle at the price of DKK 10.00 (~ 1.3 euros). The 500 ml bottle usually sold at the coolers cost DKK 16.00 (~ 2.2 euros). The Danish Cancer Society and the research group had two concerns about this: 1) the use of a can instead of a bottle would make the interpretation of the results very difficult, as the bottle and the can have two different functions to the customer—with the can, the product would be consumed all at once, whereas the bottle with the screw lid could be saved for later after it had been open; 2) the price was too low—the price per litre would be lower on the smaller sodas than it had been on those replaced. No changes were made despite these concerns.

Secondly, just days before the implementation, the retailers informed the other partners that they would stick with cans for the test of smaller-sized sodas and that they would now be 250 ml. They acknowledged that both the size and the packing were not optimal but that the optimal 375 ml in a bottle was just not possible. Additionally, they informed the researchers that they could no longer find the new bags produced for the pick’n’mix sweet display.

These challenges led to a delay of the implementation of the initiatives by 1 week, but also a staggered implementation, where the initiatives were implemented when ready (the soda initiative 2 weeks later and the bags for pick’n’ mix sweets 8 weeks later). The retailers agreed to push back the end day correspondingly, upholding the 6 weeks of implementation. Table 3 shows an overview of the implementation of the four initiatives according to the day and week of the feasibility test period.

Smaller product sizes of sodas at the checkout desk

As seen from Table  3 , we did observe the implementation of a smaller product size of the targeted sodas in all coolers, besides the one at the bakery, in the week leading up to the agreed date. We hereafter observed a full implementation of 250 ml cans during the first 2 weeks of implementation. During the third week and the beginning of the fourth week, we observed a mix of 250 and 330 ml cans or only 330 ml cans. The store manager explained that this was probably due to non-delivering from the supplier. At the end of the fourth week and for the last 2 weeks, we observed a full implementation of 250 ml cans. As the targeted size of the initiative was a 375 ml bottle, the initiative was not implemented as intended. After the 6-week feasibility test period, we observed that the smaller 250 ml cans were available in all coolers for at least eight more weeks. As expected, the presentation of the coolers fluctuated over the period. On days of stocking (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), the coolers would look neat and full, while they would appear more empty or messy on other days.

Customer responsiveness

We observed very few customers who bought any products from the coolers, and we did not get to talk to any customers about the initiative. However, the observations in the store showed no distinct change in customers’ behaviour around the coolers nor expressions of discontent or excitement with the initiative. In an interview with the store manager, he explained that he believed customers had not noticed the change.

Retailer perspectives

The store manager was positive about the initiative, but from his perspective, the decision to implement it should be made at the procurement level and by the suppliers. However, he did have an opinion on how to implement it. The price needed to be fair according to the product it replaced. Moreover, he drew attention to the fact that it was the supplier’s personnel who stocked the products rather than his own. The store manager was, therefore, not surprised that the employees at the store had little to say about the initiative. føtex’s representative (B) was also positive about the initiative and expressed in the interview that the chain would be willing to implement it—if they found it to be the ‘right thing’ to do. However, the representative also emphasised the importance of agreeing with the suppliers, which is a time-consuming process and ‘not done in just six months’.

Shelf tags for breakfast cereal products

From the first day of the implementation, some tags were missing, and one tag was consistently misplaced (Table  3 ). During the first 3 weeks, 10% ( n  = 3) of the tags were missing. This portion progressively increased to 23% until the end of the fifth week. In the sixth week, the portion decreased at first to 16% but decreased again and ended at 26%. In the weeks after the implementation period, the tags stayed present but slowly came off. Approximately 6 months later, three (10%) of the tags were still present. We observed throughout the feasibility test that the presentation of the area varied, which is to be expected in a busy supermarket. At times, the area looked messy; boxes would block access to some products, products would be sold out, some would change packaging, and new products would be introduced to the selection.

When we asked customers about the tags, we learned that they had been unaware of them and that some believed that it was not something they would use—some did not know the meaning of the labels on the tags, while others did not find the labels relevant for them.

[The tags] don’t matter. My wife is pretty health conscious, so we don’t use those, let alone know with such a thing as breakfast cereal. (Male customer)

From our observations of the behaviour of the customers in the breakfast products and cereals department, we find two interesting groups: Those who shop alone and those who shop together with others (primarily children). These groups seem to practice different behaviours.

Among those who do their grocery shopping by themselves, we find two subgroups: 1) those who have planned or know exactly what they want to buy, and 2) those who decide at the store. For the first sub-group, we observed that some showed this by practising a behaviour where they would walk quickly and purposefully towards the shelves and quickly pick up a product. Others would look determined to find a specific product, as the fieldnote excerpt illustrates:

A woman stands looking at the muesli. She first grabs an orange bag on the bottom shelf, then a more yellow one next door and puts the first one back on the shelf. She inspects the bag she took. She starts to look around the shelves more and reaches for a bag that has a pinker look on the top shelf. She puts it back and reaches into the space next to it, where there are a few bags at the very back, but she has difficulty reaching them. A man comes by, notices the woman, and offers to help her. The woman indicates a yes, and the man reaches up and grabs a bag ‘that's the one!’ says the woman as the man hands her the bag.

Another example was a man who kept looking back and forth between some muesli and granola products and his phone before he eventually chose a product. It is unknown whether the man was looking at a specific note, a text request from his family, or a picture on his phone, yet what was on his phone seemed to determine the product he bought. Overall, this group seemed very unlikely to be influenced by the tags, as they had made their choice already before they entered the store.

For the second sub-group, those who seemed to make their decision in the store, we observed that some would just stop and glance at the products without choosing one before moving on with their shopping. Others would look more randomly at the selection than those described above, walk back and forth in the aisle, compare different products and read the info on the back of the products.

For those who shopped together with others (most often children), we observed that when adults shopped with children, the choices of the child and the choices of the adult often conflicted. In one example of a child and a woman who looked at breakfast cereal products, the child was initially allowed to pick a product and asked for different chocolate variants, which all featured cartoon figures; however, the woman rejected all of the child’s choices. In the interaction, the child was met with demands from the woman regarding the attributes of the products: they could not contain chocolate or sugar. In the end, it was the woman who chose a product based on her experience of the child’s preferences and her criteria. In similar situations, we did observe an attempt at compromising between the adult’s and the child’s criteria, which was explained by this woman:

I ask them [woman and boy aged about 10] what they look for when choosing breakfast cereals. The woman looks at the boy and says, ‘Well, what are we looking for?’. The boy does not answer but looks at her and me and smiles. The woman herself replies, ‘Something we can agree on. Something he likes but is not too unhealthy, either’. I ask her what she considers unhealthy. She waffles for a bit and then replies, ‘Yes, but he wants that Lions cereal, for example, and I don’t want him to have that. So something that’s not de facto sweets’. She takes the box of granola that they have chosen [Paulún's blueberry/lemon granola] out of the basket, looks at it and says, ‘So we chose this one. There's probably also a lot of fructose and caramelised stuff in it, but yeah.’

This illustrates the high impact children had on the choices of breakfast products, but also how the parents tried to control and negotiate the final choice.

Retailer perspective

The store manager had little faith in the effectiveness of the shelf tags:

The thing about tagging cereals, I don't think that makes the slightest difference. The reason why I’m sceptical in that regard is that it’s a mixture of what I do on a daily basis. It’s especially the behavioural patterns of our customers, but also how I act as a customer myself to a degree. I don't think shelf tags with the whole grain label or anything like that; in my experience it hasn’t changed things much. (Store manager)

His view on the effect of the initiative was in line with our observations of the customers in the store. Furthermore, the store manager explained that it was difficult to maintain the initiative, as it was not part of the employees’ daily routine. This was also the argument of why the tags lingered after the test period—it was just not part of the usual protocol either to hang them up or take them down. This perspective was shared by the føtex representative (B), who also highlighted the cost of this maintenance.

Contrary to the store managers’ sceptics, the føtex representative (B) was more positive about the initiative:

I think it’s a good initiative. We work a lot with tags and labels in general. [...] I think making it transparent to the consumer is really interesting because there’s nothing wrong with buying a box of Nesquick cereal every once in a while. At least we should not claim it’s the wrong thing to do. But you just have to be clear about what you’re buying, and I think those labels help with that. (føtex representative (B))

She explained that the initiative was highly compatible with their usual strategies. However, she also explained in the interview that a barrier to using shelf tags to promote the buying of certain products was that the chain was trying to reduce the printed material they used in their stores as part of their CSR strategy and to reduce costs.

Replacement of the complimentary bun for children with a banana

The complimentary banana was fully implemented in the feasibility test period except for 1 day of observation, where the signs were not visible (Table  3 ). The initiative also remained available and present by the sign for at least 10 weeks after the implementation period. Furthermore, the store manager informed the researcher that they would continue to provide bananas for customers requesting this as an act of customer service. From the observations, we do find that the presentation of the initiative changed throughout the period. At first, the bananas were placed in a cardboard box on the display counter, which was later replaced with a nicer-looking basket. The number of bananas and their colour also fluctuated during the different days, which would be expected due to the delivery of the bananas and how often they are restocked. However, compared to the buns, we never observed that the bananas were not available, making it a reliable offer no matter the time of the day.

We observed two ways (1 and 2) that the complimentary offer for children was brought up: 1) A customer would ask for the ‘bun for children’, or 2) the staff would offer the complimentary banana to buying customers. In the first way 1), we saw two responses from the staff (a and b) and the customers (i and ii): (a) The customer would be offered the bun with no mention of the banana, or (b) the staff would inform the customer that they no longer offered buns but that they offered a banana instead. The customers had two primary responses to this message: (i) The customer rejected the offer and decided to buy a bun or another item instead. The child was often included in this decision. (ii) The customer accepted the offer and received the banana. In some cases, the child did not accept the offer and the customer compensated for this response by buying a bun or another product for the child. In the second way 2), in which the staff offered the banana spontaneously, the customers almost always reacted positively and accepted the offer.

The following excerpt illustrates why some customers rejected the offer:

A woman with a child of about 1-year-old in a stroller walks up to the bakery and asks for a children's bun. The child has already noticed the buns from the moment they arrive and sits, pointing at the buns through the glass window and babbling. The shop assistant says that there are no children's buns but bananas and points to the sign. The woman replies, ‘I’d like to buy a bun, then’. The assistant takes the bun and enters it into the till, while the woman says, ‘Bananas are so messy’. The assistant smiles and says, ‘Well yeah, I'll pass that on’. The woman replies, ‘It's just that the banana is rather a bother, and the assistant replies, ‘But I think we’ll be offering [the buns] again eventually’.

Thus, adults rejected the offer because eating a banana was a messier process than eating a bun. During meetings and interviews, the retailer also highlighted this as the main reason for rejections of the offer, especially among those with younger children. Another reason for rejection was that the parents did not appreciate the offer nor perceived a need to offer their children a banana instead of a bun.

This initiative was the most successful and interesting one in the eyes of the store manager.

I’d like to highlight the banana for kids, which is clearly the initiative I found most customers were pleased with. (Store manager)

Many customers responded positively to the new offer, which was emphasised as a marker of success. It was also the reason why the initiative continued after the 6-week period, and the store manager explained that they would continue to give bananas to those who asked for them.

The following excerpt illustrates what the bun meant to føtex and the chain’s relationship with its customers.

The children's bun has been around for donkey’s years, and it’s become ingrained in parents and kids alike that you can get them in føtex. So, we’re quite interested in learning how many people would actually, if presented with the alternative, choose something else, like, for example, the banana. I’m quite surprised by that – we can't track it, unfortunately – but off the top of my head, up to 40 to 50 percent actually choose the banana. I find that very interesting. (føtex representative (B))

Thus, it came as a surprise that the initiative was so well received. However, despite the positive experiences with the initiative, the retailers also commented on the cost. They highlighted that the banana was more expensive than the bun, and if it should be an option offered in all stores, then it would have to be prioritised at the executive level as an additional expenditure. In this case, the banana would only be an alternative to the bun and not a replacement. This was rationalised by the retailers’ attitude of not making choices on behalf of the customers.

Smaller bags for pick’n’ mix sweets

This initiative was not implemented until 8 weeks after the initial implementation date. It was fully implemented for five out of the six weeks; during the third week, we observed that the old, larger bags had been hung in front of the new smaller bags. At 2 weeks and four and a half months after the feasibility test, the smaller bags could still be found behind the larger bags—however, it is unlikely that these would have been used, as the obvious choice would have been the bag at the very front. As described for the other areas, this also fluctuated in its presentation and stocking.

We did not get any direct reactions from customers on the smaller bag. However, our observations showed that different strategies were used to decide the amount of candy among customers who bought pick’n’mix sweets. Some showed signs of visually assessing the amount of sweets in the bag, which were the customers we would expect to influence. We often observed this strategy among adults with children, where it was the adult who would visually assess the amount and communicate to the child when they had picked enough.

Those with very young children would walk alongside the child and select the sweets for them, and some adults would encourage the choice of the child by pointing out different variants and commenting on the appearance of the sweets.

Other strategies were to mix according to a pre-defined number of pieces or volume:

A boy of about 10 and a girl of about 8 come over and mix sweets. They repeatedly weigh the bag while doing so. A woman comes over, and the girl says, ‘Hello mummy!’ The woman says, ‘Don’t forget to weigh it’. She then grabs a bag herself and begins to mix sweets. The boy asks the girl, ‘Did you weigh it?’. The girl walks over to the scales and says, ‘I think I’ve got enough’. However, she does not close the bag, and she begins to walk around somewhat restlessly, then says, ‘I don’t know what to pick. I’m still [a few] grammes short’.

An interesting aspect of the situation above is that the girl expressed that she was satisfied with what she had chosen, but she felt that she had to meet the prespecified weight and, therefore, tried to find more sweets to put in her bag. Such strategies undermine the mechanism which the initiative was trying to influence.

Overall, the retailers were positive about this initiative. The føtex representative (B) highlighted that this initiative was interesting as it was a stealth initiative, compared to the initiatives with the sodas, and would change the behaviour of the customers without them noticing. In her opinion, this was not a problem, as people paid per gram.

The store manager had a clear demand for the implementation; it should be easy for both the staff and customers to use. This perspective was backed up by a føtex representative (B) who said:

If there’s something that doesn’t work for us, it’s... if it doesn’t work for our customers, that’s what we need to solve first. (føtex representative (B))

This shows how one success criterion of the retailers is customer satisfaction, which we elaborate on later (See: Influence of customers and other stakeholders on store operation).

The initiative was very delayed, and one reason was that it was challenging to create a new bag that would work in the store. This resulted in the order of many different bags in large quantities due to the agreements with the suppliers, which had been very costly for the retailer.

The føtex representative (B) also reflected on what the potential evidence of an effect would mean to the retailer:

Then we’ll have to wait and see if people buy fewer sweets. And of course, this is something that we must take into account because it’s no secret that part of being a responsible business is to make a profit. And if we sell fewer sweets, then we make less money. (føtex representative (B))

This shows how health and financial profit were seen as opposites and how the success of the initiative would not necessarily lead to it being viewed favourably, as it would negatively affect their profit. Any implementation in the chain would, therefore, have to be a strategic decision.

Facilitators and barriers

In the sections above, we have focused on the four specific initiatives. In the following, we will present analytical findings that go across the initiatives and elucidate what facilitated and hampered the implementation of the initiatives overall. We have organised our findings under three headings: Health is not the number one priority; General capacity of the retailer; and Influence of customers and other stakeholders on store operation.

Health is not the number one priority

In this section, we present the retailers’ motivation for and interest in engaging in the project and working with health and health promotion and what drives and/or curbs this motivation. In our understanding of motivation, we draw on Scaccia et al. [ 33 ] and view motivation as incentives and disincentives that contribute to the desirability of using an initiative focusing on health.

We find that the retailers expressed motivation for working with health and health promotion, which at first seemed to be based on interest. The retailer representatives explained how they personally were interested in health and wanted to learn more, but also that the organisation had an interest in health, especially among children and young people, and wanted to contribute to health-preventing activities, for example, by financially supporting local sports clubs. According to one retailer representative, this was because physical activity and healthy eating promote happier customers, as well as happy employees. The argument points to retailers’ focus on customer satisfaction (see: Influence of customers and other stakeholders on store operation). The focus on the customers relates to another factor of motivation: Working with health was also seen as a relative advantage in that customers increasingly demand healthier products and alternatives. Lastly, we found that the motivation for working with health was a feeling of obligation due to the view of having a social responsibility:

I would say, in purely business and commercial terms, we are, indeed, a commercial business that was created to make money. There’s no ignoring that (laughs). So, of course, this is our main KPI [key performance indicator]. But that being said, we also agree that we have a social responsibility because we are as big as we are. We make a lot of foodstuffs available to the Danes, as do many of our colleagues in our industry, so there is no doubt that we have a role to play in terms of what we make available. (føtex representative (A))

According to the excerpt, this obligation was rooted in the size of the organisation and, thereby, the major influence on people’s selection of food products. However, the excerpt also highlighted that health was not their first priority, which was profit. This point has been repeatedly mentioned among retailers, which reinforces its validity; they were a business and had to gain profit to keep running their operation, which presented limits for what could be implemented. The store manager even expressed how he perceived the running of a supermarket and promotion of public health as incompatible goals and something he had never seen an example of in a real-life supermarket.

However, from the interviews with the retailers and our fieldwork, it seemed that this was not completely black and white, as the retailers were willing to give up their profit in some cases. An example is the hiding of tobacco products in all Salling Groups’ supermarket chains, which they voluntarily implemented in 2018, which led to a significant decrease in profit from tobacco products.

After all, the Salling Group pioneered this with tobacco products. I'm proud of that, but I also think it’s the right thing to do. My personal opinion is that it was the absolutely correct move they chose to make, by making it harder to market a product that is obviously bad for my health. We’re not there with pick‘n’mix sweets just yet, in that we would claim they’re bad for your health, but the mindset in terms of; that is, upholding the mindset when it comes to cigarettes is something that we, as an industry, can easily support in close cooperation with, among others, yourselves [researchers] and the industry. (Store manager)

Risk seemed to be the driver. If the retailer was convinced that the risk was real or big enough, then they were willing to give up some of their profits because it was the ‘right thing to do’, and they would have the courage and power to do so. It was mentioned by all three informants that they did not believe in bans, limitations or hiding of products, as this interfered with the customer’s freedom of choice. This viewpoint was a barrier to the implementation of all initiatives that used strategies that would minimise or reduce the availability of a product. Yet, as with the tobacco products, we found other examples where this restriction of choice was justified by the retailer. One example was that the føtex chain only sold organic bananas. From a sign in the store, this was because:

‘we want to avoid the spray agent chlorpyrifos. Among other things, it is suspected of harming the development of children and foetuses. We can’t live with that suspicion and therefore you can only buy organic bananas in the future’

As with the cigarettes, the argument here was the health risks. In the interview with the store manager about restricting choices, animal welfare and political reasons (e.g. Russia’s warfare against Ukraine) were mentioned as other arguments for doing so.

So, despite an immediate motivation for working with health, the retailer also expressed how other interests and priorities may hinder and set aside the work with health.

General capacity of the retailer

This section presents our findings relating to the general capacity of the retailer in the form of resources, organisational size, and culture. General capacity is understood as the readiness or ability to implement any new initiative [ 33 ].

Through the interviews with the føtex representative (B) and working together with the retailer during the project, we have found that the retailer seemed to be used to and willing to implement new initiatives. In this current study, they accounted for all expenses related to the development of materials for the test and were also willing to risk some of their profit for a short period of time. The føtex representative (B) highlighted this high level of available resources several times in the interview:

I have some leverage, so when we do something, we don’t do it by halves. What I find most motivating, and I can say that with complete peace of mind, is that if the Salling Group says they’re going to do something, or if føtex says they’re going to do something or says they want to win this particular battle, then we win it, and then we do it to the full. [...] So when we say, for example, with this health project, that ‘we want to work with health,’ then we do want to work with health, and we’re going to make a difference in health, too. (føtex representative (B))

In this excerpt, she expressed that the mere size of the company allowed them to push any agenda if they wanted to. However, this also underlines that this capacity is dependent on the retailer’s willingness, a willingness that was not in favour of many of the initiatives that the researcher, based on the literature, thought would have the greatest effect.

Even though the size of the company came with many available resources, the retailer also explained how the size of the company had worked against the project in several ways:

What I think made it difficult for us to get through with some of these things let's just take the sodas, in that case, we have a private label collaborator who has production facilities, and when they press the ‘Salling sodas’ button, it doesn't just spew out a few thousand bottles, but millions. So saying ‘can't we just try to reduce the size and give it a try.’ It's a giant setup, so it’s not possible to do that at a whim. You’d need to get a whole or half chain on board that can help sell such volumes because otherwise, the costs would go through the roof. (føtex representative (A))

What this excerpt explains is that even changes that appeared small would take tremendous effort and be very costly, due to the size of the organisation.

Another challenge of the implementation was embedded in the retailers’ organisational culture. Føtex representative (B) explained in the interview that conflicting goals between employees made it difficult and time-consuming when implementing new initiatives. Another barrier to implementing the initiatives was high staff turnover at the retailer. In an interview with a føtex representative, she explained that people often shifted around different positions in the organisation, which ended in the project falling between two stools, leading to misunderstandings of agreements and changes in attitudes towards the initiatives.

In summary, we find that the retailers could, in some respects, have a strong general capacity to implement new initiatives by having available resources and being used to implement new initiatives. Regardless, this study shows that this was not utilised due to a lack of willingness. Moreover, we find that the size and organisational culture of the retailer hampered the implementation of the initiatives.

Influence of customers and other stakeholders on store operation

The last section reports on the influence of customers on the retailer’s willingness to implement the initiatives, and the influence of other stakeholders, especially producers, on what can be implemented.

We found that the customer’s reactions and attitudes were determining to the retailer when implementing any new initiative, as indicated in the sections above. According to the retailer, the customer was the focus when designing the layout of the store:

We are in very close dialogue with our clients, we do quantitative surveys and we do focus groups, we do in-depth interviews. And in that context, we're trying to understand, when you're shopping, how do you go about it. Is it easy for you to find the items you are looking for? And based on the responses, we try to adapt our stores to make things easy for our customers. (føtex representative (A))

The same representative also mentioned that she thought it would have been a strength of the project to have conducted interviews with the customers as a part of the development process, emphasising the weight they put on the customer’s attitudes. The retailers highlighted the importance of customer satisfaction and convenience in their shopping experience as a barrier to implementing certain initiatives, such as changing the placement of products. However, these same factors have also proven to be facilitators for other initiatives, such as the tags for breakfast products and the complimentary banana for children, as demonstrated above.

Another important stakeholder for the supermarkets was the suppliers of their products. Others were government actors (e.g. the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration). For both downsizing initiatives, the suppliers of the products (sodas and bags for sweets) were key to the success of their implementation. In an interview with the store manager, he explained the huge role some of these suppliers have in the daily operation of the store and the chain.

After all, we’ve got a chain agreement that our head office has made with the breweries. I don’t get to decide which items are in our refrigerators. [...] The tricky thing is that we’re not only dealing with føtex or the Salling Group. We also have to do with some other, equally large companies that are also just coming in. Plus, I have people here X times a week to service their particular area. [...] [Another thing] that proved tricky, as far as I recall, was that the alternatives offered, people felt strongly about those because the breweries made some strategic choices, and because of those, some of the items that we might be able to stock, they didn't want to sell those. (Store manager)

This excerpt illustrates how suppliers like the breweries, as shown earlier, influenced the implementation and affected the decisions made by the retailer.

This section indicates that even though the retailer is convinced that a given initiative would be interesting to implement in their supermarket, the suppliers often must agree as well, and finally, the customers must also welcome it.

In this study, we have explored the implementation, acceptability, and feasibility of four different health-promoting food retail initiatives aimed at customers in a real-life supermarket setting, using different qualitative methods. We found that (i) Two initiatives (downsizing of bags for the pick’n’ mix sweets and the complimentary banana for children) were implemented to a high degree, yet delivery issues caused delays according to the planned date, especially for the bags. The downsizing of soda bottles was not implemented as intended; the size and packaging deviated from the original plan due to delivery failure. Moreover, the implementation decreased over the feasibility test for the initiative with shelf tags, as it took more continuous maintenance. For all initiatives, we found that they lingered after the feasibility test; however, only the banana for children was somewhat sustained for a period to accommodate customer demand. (ii) The retailers expressed different levels of acceptability towards the initiatives, and different representatives sometimes also showed different levels of acceptability towards the same initiative, such as the tags on the breakfast products. The most well-received initiative was the banana for children, which is somewhat unsurprising, as it was the retailers themselves that suggested including this initiative. Additionally, the positive response from the customers that they got supported the retailers’ positive attitude towards the initiative. We also found that many customers responded well to this initiative; however, we also observed a group that did not accept the initiative and preferred the bun over the banana. For the remaining initiatives, customers did not seem to notice them. Yet, we did observe customer behaviours that would probably work against the suggested mechanisms of some of the initiatives. (iii) In general, we describe three themes of barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation and possible sustainment of the initiatives: Health is not the number one priority, General capacity of the retailer, and Influence of customers and other stakeholders on store operation. Firstly, we found the retailers were motivated to work with health, both from a personal and professional perspective. The motivation was rooted in a feeling of social responsibility as well as health initiatives being viewed as a relative advantage, due to demand and making customers happier. Still, other priorities, such as profit and maintaining customers’ ‘free choice’, challenged the motivation to implement such initiatives. Secondly, the retailer showed a high level of available resources, which supported their general capacity to implement the initiatives; however, the large size of the organisation and its culture proved to be barriers to the implementation. Lastly, the analysis showed that the influence of both customers and other stakeholders was crucial to the implementation, both in terms of what is possible and what the retailers would be interested in and prioritise.

Our findings are similar to those of others [ 26 , 35 ]. Winkler et al. [ 35 ] found that even though supermarket actors found health-promoting initiatives meaningful to engage in, their engagement was challenged by a business mindset, practical routines, and structural requirements. Thus, despite the involvement of retailers in the development, selection and implementation of the initiatives, studies suggest that healthy food retail initiatives still encounter some fundamental barriers towards the implementation, such as the economical aspect or the view on customers’ free choice. However, our results also indicate that it might be possible to persuade food retailers to remove products or restrict choices if the evidence or arguments of it being the right thing to do are sufficiently strong, as with organic bananas or tobacco products. This has also been the case of another retailer in Denmark, which has decided that all their stores should be tobacco and nicotine-free by the end of 2028 to reduce the number of smokers [ 36 ]. Another solution is to identify win–win initiatives, as the complimentary banana for children was somewhat an example of (if we consider the banana as a healthier alternative) and which other studies have found as well [ 35 , 37 ].

Even though the four initiatives were implemented (yet two not as intended) in this study, and we found them to be somewhat acceptable to the retailers, we must still highlight that these initiatives represent a very small portion of the initiatives first suggested and entail several compromises from what the researchers had initially planned (Duus et al. Unpublished ). Moreover, the customer’s responses to the initiatives were mixed, and in some cases, their behaviour indicated that the initiatives would have little effect. Compared with studies testing similar initiatives, we find that 1) Shelf tags alone were found unlikely to change food purchases [ 38 ] and are likely to contribute to disparities in food purchases as not all customers know nutrition labels or have the literacy to read and understand them [ 39 ]. 2) Smaller bags for pick’n’ mix sweets could be successfully implemented and, based on results from another study, might be able to decrease the volume of sweets sold [ 40 ]. Moreover, others have also shown that customers are willing to buy smaller product options [ 41 ]. Taken together, this suggests that voluntary engagement with researchers might not suffice to make changes that would improve the supermarket environment as opted for to support population health. This view has also been suggested by Winkler et al. [ 35 ], and in the Lancet series on commercial determinants of health, an even more critical perspective on engagements with commercial actors as food retailers is presented [ 42 , 43 ]. Here they warn against how commercial actors use partnerships with researchers, among others, as a tool to improve their reputation and credibility [ 42 ].

In our collaborative process with the retailer, we experienced many challenges. We did not accomplish aligning retailers’ and researchers’ interests as scholars have suggested being the prerequisite of implementing healthy food retail interventions in supermarkets [ 26 , 27 ]. This underlines the importance of the pre-intervention phase, as described by Hawe, Shiell, and Riley [ 44 ], which is fundamental to a successful implementation. During the pre-intervention phase, the establishment of relationships between different people or agencies often occurs, and these relationships may play a crucial role in the implementation and the explanation of why some work and others do not [ 44 ]. In line with this, another study has suggested exploring what implementation strategies might promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions among food retailers [ 45 ]. They found that contrary to many other studies, the intervention in their study was compatible with the interest of the store managers to which it was presented—these store managers had a strong feeling of social responsibility towards the communities they operated in [ 45 ].

Strength and limitations

The investigation of the feasibility test was strengthened by using different methods, process evaluation concepts, and a broad view including both the delivery and presentation of the initiatives as well as customer and retailer perspectives. We primarily got the retailer perspective from a strategic level, yet we had planned on conducting focus group interviews with staff at the test store to get perspectives from an operational level on the initiatives and the implementation process. However, no staff wanted to participate in an interview. The store manager explained that this probably was due to three things: 1) They had no interest in the study, or they were tired of the study, 2) the recruitment was done too late (approximately 2 months after the feasibility test period), and 3) the staff was overworked as a result of understaffing due to the coronavirus disease pandemic. Future studies aim also to analyse sales data in order to evaluate whether any changes in sales of the products we intervened on occurred. However, with the available data, we will not be able to analyse whether the initiatives change people’s eating patterns or whether they influence people differently in terms of their socioeconomic factors or other characteristics.

A thorough needs assessment [ 46 ] among supermarket customers to test the initiative’s assumptions and their food purchase patterns would have strengthened the study. However, this was not possible within the timeframe and funding scheme, so the development drew primarily on existing knowledge and the experience of the retailer and the Danish Cancer Society. Furthermore, the store visits conducted in the store during the development of the initiative also provided a few customer perspectives, which led to the exclusion of some ideas (Duus et al.  unpublished ).

Furthermore, we learned two methodological lessons from the in-store observations: 1) All observers were met by the feeling of being ‘in the way’ and a need to be in almost constant movement to not interfere with the order in the store. The observers were met with a feeling of self-awareness and a need to legitimise their presence at the store by wearing a sticker on their shirts saying ‘visitor’ or their university identification card. These feelings were amplified by the governmental advice of social distancing and the requirement to wear face masks in grocery stores, introduced during the period of observations. 2) Concerning this, the observers also found it challenging to approach customers for the short interviews due to the feeling of invading people’s private space, hence only five were conducted. This was especially challenging when wearing face masks, as it was impossible to produce and read non-verbal signals (e.g. smiles), and difficult to hear what people were saying.

Implications for future studies and practice

This study presents an investigation of the implementation of healthy food retail initiatives for supermarkets that have been developed and selected together with retailers as suggested by the literature. It suggests that the implementation of such initiatives is possible and—to some degree—high. Yet, the quality of the initiatives was rather low, and some were not implemented as intended. Moreover, we still present some of the same barriers and limitations as former studies that have not implemented collaborative strategies in the pre-intervention phase. Some of this may be due to challenges such as a high staff turnover at the retailer and a lack of a shared understanding, as shown in another study (Duus et al. unpublished ). Future studies must explore this further.

Lessons for future studies are to identify initiatives that customers appreciate, as this is important to retailers. Underlining a needs assessment as an important first step in intervention development [ 30 , 46 ]. Furthermore, future studies should involve a broader range of stakeholders, including manufacturers and suppliers, in the development of the initiatives, as they have significant power over what can be implemented. Future studies would also benefit from identifying and testing implementation strategies that can facilitate the implementation of this type of intervention in this setting.

We performed a qualitative investigation of the implementation, acceptability, and feasibility of four different healthy food retail initiatives aimed at customers in a real-life supermarket setting, which had been developed and selected together with retailers. Only two of the four initiatives were implemented as intended, and the perspectives of retailers and customers were mixed or unclear. Altogether, the study highlights the challenges of implementing healthy retail food initiatives despite early involvement of retailers in the selection and design of those initiatives. Adding to the challenges of implementation, the initiatives also represent a compromise between the interests of the researcher and the retailers and do not represent what the literature suggests as the most effective strategies. A compromise made to uphold the partnership and complete the funded research project. Future studies should further examine the impact and pitfalls of including retailers (or other commercial actors) in the development and selection of healthy food retail initiatives and try to identify successful implementation strategies facilitating implementation.

Availability of data and materials

The data generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to their sensitive and confidential nature but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Corporate Social Responsibility

Key Performance Indicator

Healthy diet. WHO. 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet . Accessed 20 July 2023.

Greenwald P, Clifford CK, Milner JA. Diet and cancer prevention. Eur J Cancer. 2001May 1;37(8):948–65.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Firth J, Gangwisch JE, Borsini A, Wootton RE, Mayer EA. Food and mood: how do diet and nutrition affect mental wellbeing? BMJ. 2020Jun;29(369): m2382.

Article   Google Scholar  

English LK, Ard JD, Bailey RL, Bates M, Bazzano LA, Boushey CJ, et al. Evaluation of Dietary Patterns and All-Cause Mortality. JAMA Netw Open. 2021Aug 31;4(8): e2122277.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Swinburn B, Caterson I, Seidell J, James W. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of excess weight gain and obesity. Public Health Nutr. 2004Feb;7(1a):123–46.

Brug J. Determinants of healthy eating: motivation, abilities and environmental opportunities. Fam Pract. 2008 Dec 1;25(suppl_1):i50–5.

Adam A, Jensen JD. What is the effectiveness of obesity related interventions at retail grocery stores and supermarkets? —a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2016Dec;16(1):1247.

Ball K, Timperio AF, Crawford DA. Understanding environmental influences on nutrition and physical activity behaviors: where should we look and what should we count? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006Sep 26;3(1):33.

Sonntag D, Schneider S, Mdege N, Ali S, Schmidt B. Beyond Food Promotion: A Systematic Review on the Influence of the Food Industry on Obesity-Related Dietary Behaviour among Children. Nutrients. 2015;7(10):8565–76.

Viola D, Arno PS, Maroko AR, Schechter CB, Sohler N, Rundle A, et al. Overweight and obesity: Can we reconcile evidence about supermarkets and fast food retailers for public health policy? J Public Health Policy. 2013Aug;34(3):424–38.

Black C, Moon G, Baird J. Dietary inequalities: What is the evidence for the effect of the neighbourhood food environment? Health Place. 2014May;27:229–42.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vogel C, Ntani G, Inskip H, Barker M, Cummins S, Cooper C, et al. Education and the Relationship Between Supermarket Environment and Diet. Am J Prev Med. 2016Aug;51(2):e27-34.

Chandon P, Wansink B. Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions Nutr Rev. 2012;70(10):571–93.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bennett R, Zorbas C, Huse O, Peeters A, Cameron AJ, Sacks G, et al. Prevalence of healthy and unhealthy food and beverage price promotions and their potential influence on shopper purchasing behaviour: A systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev. 2020 Jan;21(1).

Harbers MC, Beulens JWJ, Rutters F, de Boer F, Gillebaart M, Sluijs I, et al. The effects of nudges on purchases, food choice, and energy intake or content of purchases in real-life food purchasing environments: a systematic review and evidence synthesis. Nutr J. 2020Dec;19(1):103.

Hollands GJ, Carter P, Anwer S, King SE, Jebb SA, Ogilvie D, et al. Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption. Cochrane Public Health Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 4.

Slapø H, Schjøll A, Strømgren B, Sandaker I, Lekhal S. Efficiency of In-Store Interventions to Impact Customers to Purchase Healthier Food and Beverage Products in Real-Life Grocery Stores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Foods. 2021May;10(5):922.

Gravlee CC, Boston PQ, Mitchell MM, Schultz AF, Betterley C. Food store owners’ and managers’ perspectives on the food environment: an exploratory mixed-methods study. BMC Public Health. 2014Dec;14(1):1031.

Winkler LL, Christensen U, Glümer C, Bloch P, Mikkelsen BE, Wansink B, et al. Substituting sugar confectionery with fruit and healthy snacks at checkout – a win-win strategy for consumers and food stores? a study on consumer attitudes and sales effects of a healthy supermarket intervention. BMC Public Health. 2016Nov 22;16(1):1184.

Adam A, Jensen JD, Sommer I, Hansen GL. Does shelf space management intervention have an effect on calorie turnover at supermarkets? J Retail Consum Serv. 2017Jan;1(34):311–8.

Toft U, Buch-Andersen T, Bloch P, Reinbach HC, Jensen BB, Mikkelsen BE, et al. A Community-Based, Participatory, Multi-Component Intervention Increased Sales of Healthy Foods in Local Supermarkets—The Health and Local Community Project (SoL). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023Jan;20(3):2478.

Bauer JM, Aarestrup SC, Hansen PG, Reisch LA. Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2022Jun;1(179): 121605.

Denver S, Christensen T, Nordström J. Consumer preferences for low-salt foods: a Danish case study based on a comprehensive supermarket intervention. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(12):3956–65.

Jensen JD, Sommer I. Reducing calorie sales from supermarkets – ‘silent’ reformulation of retailer-brand food products. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017Aug 23;14(1):104.

Toft U, Winkler LL, Mikkelsen BE, Bloch P, Glümer C. Discounts on fruit and vegetables combined with a space management intervention increased sales in supermarkets. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017Apr;71(4):476–80.

Middel CNH, Schuitmaker-Warnaar TJ, Mackenbach JD, Broerse JEW. Systematic review: a systems innovation perspective on barriers and facilitators for the implementation of healthy food-store interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019Dec;16(1):108.

Gupta A, Alston L, Needham C, Robinson E, Marshall J, Boelsen-Robinson T, et al. Factors Influencing Implementation, Sustainability and Scalability of Healthy Food Retail Interventions: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Nutrients. 2022Jan;14(2):294.

Denmark: market share of grocery retailers 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/565747/market-share-of-selected-grocery-retailers-in-denmark/ . Accessed 19 July 2023.

Moore N, editor. Desk research. In: How to Do Research: The Practical Guide to Designing and Managing Research Projects. Facet; 2006. p. 106–11.

Schultz Petersen K, Maindal HT, Ledderer L, Overgaard C. Komplekse interventioner: Udvikling, test, evaluering og implementering. Aalborg Universitetsforlag; 2022.

McGill E, Marks D, Er V, Penney T, Petticrew M, Egan M. Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators. PLoS Med. 2020Nov 2;17(11): e1003368.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006Jan;3(2):77–101.

Scaccia JP, Cook BS, Lamont A, Wandersman A, Castellow J, Katz J, et al. A practical implementation science heuristic for organizational readiness: R = MC2. J Community Psychol. 2015Apr;43(4):484–501.

Blake MR, Backholer K, Lancsar E, Boelsen-Robinson T, Mah C, Brimblecombe J, et al. Investigating business outcomes of healthy food retail strategies: A systematic scoping review. Obes Rev. 2019Oct;20(10):1384–99.

Winkler LL, Toft U, Glümer C, Bloch P, Buch-Andersen T, Christensen U. Involving supermarkets in health promotion interventions in the Danish Project SoL. A practice-oriented qualitative study on the engagement of supermarket staff and managers. BMC Public Health. 2023 Apr 18;23(1):706.

Lidl Danmark. https://om.lidl.dk/ansvarlighed/vi-fremmer-sundheden/udfasning-af-tobak . Accessed 7 March 2024.

Blake MR, Sacks G, Zorbas C, Marshall J, Orellana L, Brown AK, et al. The ‘Eat Well @ IGA’ healthy supermarket randomised controlled trial: process evaluation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021Dec;18(1):36.

Vandevijvere S, Berger N. The impact of shelf tags with Nutri-Score on consumer purchases: a difference-in-difference analysis of a natural experiment in supermarkets of a major retailer in Belgium. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021Nov 18;18(1):150.

Robertson A, Lobstein T, Knai C. Obesity and socio-economic groups in Europe: Evidence review and implications for action. 2007.

Mørck CJ. Nyt forsøg afslører: Bland selv-posens størrelse gør en stor forskel. 2024. https://www.cancer.dk/nyheder-og-fortaellinger/2024/nyt-forsoeg-afsloerer-bland-selv-posens-stoerrelse-goer-en-stor-forskel/ . Accessed 4 July 2024.

Vandenbroele J, Slabbinck H, Van Kerckhove A, Vermeir I. Curbing portion size effects by adding smaller portions at the point of purchase. Food Qual Prefer. 2018Mar;1(64):82–7.

Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, Bertscher A, Bondy K, Chang HJ, et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet. 2023Apr;401(10383):1194–213.

Lacy-Nichols J, Nandi S, Mialon M, McCambridge J, Lee K, Jones A, et al. Conceptualising commercial entities in public health: beyond unhealthy commodities and transnational corporations. Lancet. 2023Apr;401(10383):1214–28.

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43(3–4):267–76.

Brimblecombe J, Miles B, Chappell E, De Silva K, Ferguson M, Mah C, et al. Implementation of a food retail intervention to reduce purchase of unhealthy food and beverages in remote Australia: mixed-method evaluation using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023Feb 17;20(1):20.

Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021Sep;30(374): n2061.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all the participating retail group and supermarket staff members involved in this project and the implementation process. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this project and your openness. Furthermore, we want to acknowledge the customers who took the time to share their opinions with us during their daily grocery shopping.

We acknowledge Johanne Aviaja Rosing, Louise Ayoe Sparvath Brautsch, and Carl Johannes Middelboe for their assistance in conducting the pre- and post-intervention observations.

Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark This study is funded by the Danish Cancer Society, grant no.: R274-A16920. The first author (Katrine Sidenius Duus) has also received a Faculty Scholarship from the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Southern Denmark to support the completion of her PhD thesis, which this study is part of.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

Katrine Sidenius Duus, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen & Rikke Fredenslund Krølner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KSD, RFK, and TTT contributed to the funding acquisition, study conception and design. Data generation and analyses were performed by KSD. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KSD. RFK and TTT commented on previous versions of the manuscript and contributed in writing the final manuscript. KSD wrote up the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrine Sidenius Duus .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study has been approved by SDU Research & Innovation Organization (notification no. 11.136). All informants who participated in interviews received written and verbal information about the aim, that participation was voluntary and that their information would be used for research purposes only and treated with confidentiality. By participating, consent for their data to be used for research was given. Data from the observation and documents were handled confidentially and with caution to protect sensitive information that could identify individuals.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Duus, K.S., Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. & Krølner, R.F. Implementation of health-promoting retail initiatives in the Healthier Choices in Supermarkets Study—qualitative perspectives from a feasibility study. BMC Med 22 , 349 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03561-2

Download citation

Received : 24 May 2024

Accepted : 14 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03561-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation
• Qualitative research
• Health promotion
• Supermarkets
• Involvement
• Intervention

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• General enquiries: [email protected]