Qualitative Research

A large part of public relations research is found in the realm of qualitative research. Qualitative research—also called informal research methodology—is the gathering of information that is restricted to the setting in which it was obtained. Research employing a qualitative orientation includes data-gathering methodologies such as case study, historical and secondary, focus group, interviewing, and participant-observation. A sixth methodology often associated with qualitative research is content analysis, but its inclusion as a qualitative method has been questioned by its proponents, who argue that it is a quantitative method. Based on public relations use, it is considered an informal or qualitative method.

Many people misunderstand qualitative research. This usually stems from the assumption that qualitative means that numbers are not employed or assigned to the “data” gathered or that the research is devoid of theory. Qualitative research does employ numbers, and it is typically associated with grounded theory, or theory that arises from observations made in specific situations.

Data gathered using qualitative methods have a major restriction placed on their interpretation. The data are tied to the specific situation in which they were gathered. That is, the results cannot be generalized to a larger situation with any degree of confidence. This restriction is important, because misuse of qualitative research occurs most often either when data gathered for a case study are applied to a similar situation or when an interview is taken out of the context in which it was conducted and placed in a more general context.

Qualitative research does provide the researcher with several important advantages over its quantitative counterpart. First, the data are rich, in that they provide an in-depth understanding of a person, organization, event, or other research object. Second, the data gathered are not impersonal facts; they are value-based. John Hocking, Don Stacks, and Steven McDermott have argued that communication research asks four basic questions: what is it (definition), how much of it is observed (fact), how good is it (value), and what should be done (policy). All research methods address questions of definition, but qualitative methods are best at answering questions of value and policy (how well did the campaign do [value] and should we do it again [policy]), whereas quantitative methods are best at answering questions of fact and may address questions of value as population norms or normative expectations. Furthermore, whereas quantitative methods look at large numbers, qualitative methods look at small numbers; the quantitative survey may require 400 or more people to answer questions, whereas [Page 726]the interview may focus on only one person. What the survey provides is an understanding of what a large number of people think or will do and establishes norms; the interview examines significantly fewer people but provides a much fuller understanding of what each person thinks and why.

Third, qualitative methods provide an ex post facto understanding of the normative behaviors of larger groups. In this regard, qualitative research often expands upon what has been found in surveys and attempts to explain why the audience or public thought or behaved as it did. The key here is that the methods provide an explanation after the fact by choosing influential or appropriate people or messages. This, of course, means that qualitative methods cannot establish a cause-effect relationship, something only an experiment can do.

...