qualitative research why is it important

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on 4 April 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 30 January 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analysing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analysing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, and history.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organisation?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography, action research, phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasise different aims and perspectives.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves ‘instruments’ in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analysing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organise your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorise your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analysing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasise different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analysing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analysing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalisability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalisable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labour-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

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

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organisation to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

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 organisations.

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

• Prepare and organise 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 .

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 Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, January 30). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/introduction-to-qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Qualitative Study

Affiliations.

• 1 University of Nebraska Medical Center
• 2 GDB Research and Statistical Consulting
• 3 GDB Research and Statistical Consulting/McLaren Macomb Hospital
• PMID: 29262162
• Bookshelf ID: NBK470395

Qualitative research is a type of research that explores and provides deeper insights into real-world problems. Instead of collecting numerical data points or intervene or introduce treatments just like in quantitative research, qualitative research helps generate hypotheses as well as further investigate and understand quantitative data. Qualitative research gathers participants' experiences, perceptions, and behavior. It answers the hows and whys instead of how many or how much. It could be structured as a stand-alone study, purely relying on qualitative data or it could be part of mixed-methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative data. This review introduces the readers to some basic concepts, definitions, terminology, and application of qualitative research.

Qualitative research at its core, ask open-ended questions whose answers are not easily put into numbers such as ‘how’ and ‘why’. Due to the open-ended nature of the research questions at hand, qualitative research design is often not linear in the same way quantitative design is. One of the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to explain processes and patterns of human behavior that can be difficult to quantify. Phenomena such as experiences, attitudes, and behaviors can be difficult to accurately capture quantitatively, whereas a qualitative approach allows participants themselves to explain how, why, or what they were thinking, feeling, and experiencing at a certain time or during an event of interest. Quantifying qualitative data certainly is possible, but at its core, qualitative data is looking for themes and patterns that can be difficult to quantify and it is important to ensure that the context and narrative of qualitative work are not lost by trying to quantify something that is not meant to be quantified.

However, while qualitative research is sometimes placed in opposition to quantitative research, where they are necessarily opposites and therefore ‘compete’ against each other and the philosophical paradigms associated with each, qualitative and quantitative work are not necessarily opposites nor are they incompatible. While qualitative and quantitative approaches are different, they are not necessarily opposites, and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. For instance, qualitative research can help expand and deepen understanding of data or results obtained from quantitative analysis. For example, say a quantitative analysis has determined that there is a correlation between length of stay and level of patient satisfaction, but why does this correlation exist? This dual-focus scenario shows one way in which qualitative and quantitative research could be integrated together.

Examples of Qualitative Research Approaches

Ethnography

Ethnography as a research design has its origins in social and cultural anthropology, and involves the researcher being directly immersed in the participant’s environment. Through this immersion, the ethnographer can use a variety of data collection techniques with the aim of being able to produce a comprehensive account of the social phenomena that occurred during the research period. That is to say, the researcher’s aim with ethnography is to immerse themselves into the research population and come out of it with accounts of actions, behaviors, events, etc. through the eyes of someone involved in the population. Direct involvement of the researcher with the target population is one benefit of ethnographic research because it can then be possible to find data that is otherwise very difficult to extract and record.

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory is the “generation of a theoretical model through the experience of observing a study population and developing a comparative analysis of their speech and behavior.” As opposed to quantitative research which is deductive and tests or verifies an existing theory, grounded theory research is inductive and therefore lends itself to research that is aiming to study social interactions or experiences. In essence, Grounded Theory’s goal is to explain for example how and why an event occurs or how and why people might behave a certain way. Through observing the population, a researcher using the Grounded Theory approach can then develop a theory to explain the phenomena of interest.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is defined as the “study of the meaning of phenomena or the study of the particular”. At first glance, it might seem that Grounded Theory and Phenomenology are quite similar, but upon careful examination, the differences can be seen. At its core, phenomenology looks to investigate experiences from the perspective of the individual. Phenomenology is essentially looking into the ‘lived experiences’ of the participants and aims to examine how and why participants behaved a certain way, from their perspective . Herein lies one of the main differences between Grounded Theory and Phenomenology. Grounded Theory aims to develop a theory for social phenomena through an examination of various data sources whereas Phenomenology focuses on describing and explaining an event or phenomena from the perspective of those who have experienced it.

Narrative Research

One of qualitative research’s strengths lies in its ability to tell a story, often from the perspective of those directly involved in it. Reporting on qualitative research involves including details and descriptions of the setting involved and quotes from participants. This detail is called ‘thick’ or ‘rich’ description and is a strength of qualitative research. Narrative research is rife with the possibilities of ‘thick’ description as this approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals, in the hopes of creating a cohesive story, or narrative. While it might seem like a waste of time to focus on such a specific, individual level, understanding one or two people’s narratives for an event or phenomenon can help to inform researchers about the influences that helped shape that narrative. The tension or conflict of differing narratives can be “opportunities for innovation”.

Research Paradigm

Research paradigms are the assumptions, norms, and standards that underpin different approaches to research. Essentially, research paradigms are the ‘worldview’ that inform research. It is valuable for researchers, both qualitative and quantitative, to understand what paradigm they are working within because understanding the theoretical basis of research paradigms allows researchers to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the approach being used and adjust accordingly. Different paradigms have different ontology and epistemologies . Ontology is defined as the "assumptions about the nature of reality” whereas epistemology is defined as the “assumptions about the nature of knowledge” that inform the work researchers do. It is important to understand the ontological and epistemological foundations of the research paradigm researchers are working within to allow for a full understanding of the approach being used and the assumptions that underpin the approach as a whole. Further, it is crucial that researchers understand their own ontological and epistemological assumptions about the world in general because their assumptions about the world will necessarily impact how they interact with research. A discussion of the research paradigm is not complete without describing positivist, postpositivist, and constructivist philosophies.

Positivist vs Postpositivist

To further understand qualitative research, we need to discuss positivist and postpositivist frameworks. Positivism is a philosophy that the scientific method can and should be applied to social as well as natural sciences. Essentially, positivist thinking insists that the social sciences should use natural science methods in its research which stems from positivist ontology that there is an objective reality that exists that is fully independent of our perception of the world as individuals. Quantitative research is rooted in positivist philosophy, which can be seen in the value it places on concepts such as causality, generalizability, and replicability.

Conversely, postpositivists argue that social reality can never be one hundred percent explained but it could be approximated. Indeed, qualitative researchers have been insisting that there are “fundamental limits to the extent to which the methods and procedures of the natural sciences could be applied to the social world” and therefore postpositivist philosophy is often associated with qualitative research. An example of positivist versus postpositivist values in research might be that positivist philosophies value hypothesis-testing, whereas postpositivist philosophies value the ability to formulate a substantive theory.

Constructivist

Constructivism is a subcategory of postpositivism. Most researchers invested in postpositivist research are constructivist as well, meaning they think there is no objective external reality that exists but rather that reality is constructed. Constructivism is a theoretical lens that emphasizes the dynamic nature of our world. “Constructivism contends that individuals’ views are directly influenced by their experiences, and it is these individual experiences and views that shape their perspective of reality”. Essentially, Constructivist thought focuses on how ‘reality’ is not a fixed certainty and experiences, interactions, and backgrounds give people a unique view of the world. Constructivism contends, unlike in positivist views, that there is not necessarily an ‘objective’ reality we all experience. This is the ‘relativist’ ontological view that reality and the world we live in are dynamic and socially constructed. Therefore, qualitative scientific knowledge can be inductive as well as deductive.”

So why is it important to understand the differences in assumptions that different philosophies and approaches to research have? Fundamentally, the assumptions underpinning the research tools a researcher selects provide an overall base for the assumptions the rest of the research will have and can even change the role of the researcher themselves. For example, is the researcher an ‘objective’ observer such as in positivist quantitative work? Or is the researcher an active participant in the research itself, as in postpositivist qualitative work? Understanding the philosophical base of the research undertaken allows researchers to fully understand the implications of their work and their role within the research, as well as reflect on their own positionality and bias as it pertains to the research they are conducting.

Data Sampling

The better the sample represents the intended study population, the more likely the researcher is to encompass the varying factors at play. The following are examples of participant sampling and selection:

Purposive sampling- selection based on the researcher’s rationale in terms of being the most informative.

Criterion sampling-selection based on pre-identified factors.

Convenience sampling- selection based on availability.

Snowball sampling- the selection is by referral from other participants or people who know potential participants.

Extreme case sampling- targeted selection of rare cases.

Typical case sampling-selection based on regular or average participants.

Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative research uses several techniques including interviews, focus groups, and observation. [1] [2] [3] Interviews may be unstructured, with open-ended questions on a topic and the interviewer adapts to the responses. Structured interviews have a predetermined number of questions that every participant is asked. It is usually one on one and is appropriate for sensitive topics or topics needing an in-depth exploration. Focus groups are often held with 8-12 target participants and are used when group dynamics and collective views on a topic are desired. Researchers can be a participant-observer to share the experiences of the subject or a non-participant or detached observer.

While quantitative research design prescribes a controlled environment for data collection, qualitative data collection may be in a central location or in the environment of the participants, depending on the study goals and design. Qualitative research could amount to a large amount of data. Data is transcribed which may then be coded manually or with the use of Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software or CAQDAS such as ATLAS.ti or NVivo.

After the coding process, qualitative research results could be in various formats. It could be a synthesis and interpretation presented with excerpts from the data. Results also could be in the form of themes and theory or model development.

Dissemination

To standardize and facilitate the dissemination of qualitative research outcomes, the healthcare team can use two reporting standards. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research or COREQ is a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is a checklist covering a wider range of qualitative research.

Examples of Application

Many times a research question will start with qualitative research. The qualitative research will help generate the research hypothesis which can be tested with quantitative methods. After the data is collected and analyzed with quantitative methods, a set of qualitative methods can be used to dive deeper into the data for a better understanding of what the numbers truly mean and their implications. The qualitative methods can then help clarify the quantitative data and also help refine the hypothesis for future research. Furthermore, with qualitative research researchers can explore subjects that are poorly studied with quantitative methods. These include opinions, individual's actions, and social science research.

A good qualitative study design starts with a goal or objective. This should be clearly defined or stated. The target population needs to be specified. A method for obtaining information from the study population must be carefully detailed to ensure there are no omissions of part of the target population. A proper collection method should be selected which will help obtain the desired information without overly limiting the collected data because many times, the information sought is not well compartmentalized or obtained. Finally, the design should ensure adequate methods for analyzing the data. An example may help better clarify some of the various aspects of qualitative research.

A researcher wants to decrease the number of teenagers who smoke in their community. The researcher could begin by asking current teen smokers why they started smoking through structured or unstructured interviews (qualitative research). The researcher can also get together a group of current teenage smokers and conduct a focus group to help brainstorm factors that may have prevented them from starting to smoke (qualitative research).

In this example, the researcher has used qualitative research methods (interviews and focus groups) to generate a list of ideas of both why teens start to smoke as well as factors that may have prevented them from starting to smoke. Next, the researcher compiles this data. The research found that, hypothetically, peer pressure, health issues, cost, being considered “cool,” and rebellious behavior all might increase or decrease the likelihood of teens starting to smoke.

The researcher creates a survey asking teen participants to rank how important each of the above factors is in either starting smoking (for current smokers) or not smoking (for current non-smokers). This survey provides specific numbers (ranked importance of each factor) and is thus a quantitative research tool.

The researcher can use the results of the survey to focus efforts on the one or two highest-ranked factors. Let us say the researcher found that health was the major factor that keeps teens from starting to smoke, and peer pressure was the major factor that contributed to teens to start smoking. The researcher can go back to qualitative research methods to dive deeper into each of these for more information. The researcher wants to focus on how to keep teens from starting to smoke, so they focus on the peer pressure aspect.

The researcher can conduct interviews and/or focus groups (qualitative research) about what types and forms of peer pressure are commonly encountered, where the peer pressure comes from, and where smoking first starts. The researcher hypothetically finds that peer pressure often occurs after school at the local teen hangouts, mostly the local park. The researcher also hypothetically finds that peer pressure comes from older, current smokers who provide the cigarettes.

The researcher could further explore this observation made at the local teen hangouts (qualitative research) and take notes regarding who is smoking, who is not, and what observable factors are at play for peer pressure of smoking. The researcher finds a local park where many local teenagers hang out and see that a shady, overgrown area of the park is where the smokers tend to hang out. The researcher notes the smoking teenagers buy their cigarettes from a local convenience store adjacent to the park where the clerk does not check identification before selling cigarettes. These observations fall under qualitative research.

If the researcher returns to the park and counts how many individuals smoke in each region of the park, this numerical data would be quantitative research. Based on the researcher's efforts thus far, they conclude that local teen smoking and teenagers who start to smoke may decrease if there are fewer overgrown areas of the park and the local convenience store does not sell cigarettes to underage individuals.

The researcher could try to have the parks department reassess the shady areas to make them less conducive to the smokers or identify how to limit the sales of cigarettes to underage individuals by the convenience store. The researcher would then cycle back to qualitative methods of asking at-risk population their perceptions of the changes, what factors are still at play, as well as quantitative research that includes teen smoking rates in the community, the incidence of new teen smokers, among others.

Copyright © 2024, StatPearls Publishing LLC.

• Introduction
• Issues of Concern
• Clinical Significance
• Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
• Review Questions

Publication types

• Study Guide

Importance of Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a form of social investigation that primarily focuses on the different types of the way people make sense of their knowledge in the world they live in. It also involves the interpretation of their experiences in their daily life. We live in a world where the different races of human beings exist side by side without any problem. We might ask what are the attributes, differences or similarities to make this comparison. In this scenario, qualitative research plays a major role in answering all of our doubts.

According to a study by Coghan in 2014, there is an involvement of personal experiences in each stage of qualitative research. Quantitative research is defined as an act of investigation or inquiry of real-life proceedings.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Various characteristics of qualitative research are as follows.

• Helps in interpretation and understanding of human behavior through data analysis
• The powerful and active method of data collection by asking questions through interviews, surveys, and questionnaires
• Some multiple methods and approaches allow the researcher to plan for the study. It is a multiple method research study
• Several specific ideas that lead to the conclusion or generalization of the data
• Contextualization of the situation in the life of an individual
• Collection of diversified data in natural and real-life settings
• Representation of view of the people in a video, drawing, picture or graphs
• Proper examination of the data yielded due to internal attributes of the subject

Advantages of the Qualitative Research

Now let us check in detail the advantages of qualitative research in real life. They are described below.

• Quantitative research implements an approach that is completely natural to the subject matter.
• The framework for research is based on available and incoming data. Also, the subject materials are evaluated in greater detail along with discussions.
• The collected data in qualitative research includes a predictive quality in it. It mainly operates within the fluid structures.
• The complexities of the data in qualitative research can be incorporated into the generated conclusions.
• Promotes a detailed understanding of the human personality and behavior traits in their natural surroundings.
• It is very efficient in bringing positive changes in society
• The qualitative research maintains respect for the individuality of different people.
• The research is the most effective way to interpret and understand the interactions in society.
• Enhances the interest of the researcher on a particular subject.
• Qualitative research offers multiple and innovative ways of examining and acquiring data about a study.
• Qualitative research unveils the feelings, perceptions, and attitudes of a particular topic.
• It also stimulates the interpersonal and interdependence of the relationships among human beings.
• All the information is reliable and precise, as qualitative research promotes the collaboration of the researchers as well.
• It also provides an in-depth and detailed idea about a subject by analyzing the ranks and counts of the feelings, attitudes, and behavior.
• It also can explain why a particular response was given against the questions in an interview.

How can Qualitative Research Help Mankind?

Qualitative data can help mankind in many different ways. Let us have a brief look at it below:

• Development of hypothesis for the development of a quantitative questionnaire and further testing processes.
• Identification of the needs of the consumers
• Making perceptions of the communication and marketing messages
• Generation of the ideas for the extension or improvement of the products, services or brands
• Understanding the people’s perspective on marketing or a communication piece
• Understanding of the values, perceptions, and feelings that influences and underlie in the behavior
• Capturing the languages of the imagery clients to relate or describe to a service, product or brand
• Understanding of the better meaning of the data obtained through quantitative research
• Unhidden the direction of the potential strategies for the communication or branding programs
• Designing of parameters like responses range of relevant questions for the study of quantitative research

Implementation of Qualitative research in Real Life Situations

Below are some of the real-life circumstances where qualitative research is often used. They are:

• Investigation of the potential or current products services or position of a brand through the marketing strategies.
• Understanding the dynamics of the purchasing decision.
• Exploring market sections like a specific group of people, demographics, age and many more.
• Accessing the website usability or various other interactive services or products.
• Determining the language of the customer as the most important step to create a quantitative survey.
• Development and generation of an idea of a new product.
• Weaknesses and strengths of the brands or products
• Studying the attitudes and emotions of the public and social affair related issues
• Complete understanding of the company’s perception of a specific brand, product, or category

The Pros of the Qualitative Research

With experts from WriteMyPaperHub you  will write your research paper  – but let us take a quick sneak peek into the pros of qualitative research. They are the following

• The approach of qualitative research is not bounded by quantitative methods. If the responses do not fit the expectations of the researchers, then qualitative research might explain something that numbers itself cannot explain alone.
• Qualitative research allows the researchers to be more speculative about which segments they need and how to investigate. It allows prompt data capture according to the instinctive or gut feelings of the researcher where good information can be revealed.
• Qualitative research captures the evolving attitudes of the target group like service or product for the consumers, or attitudes of the employees in the office.
• Qualitative research offers an approach that is more flexible in nature. If the insights are not useful, then the researchers can adapt questions to change the settings or variables and improve the responses.
• Qualitative research is more targeted and covers different areas of organizations. It includes the entire process, parts, and participants that are needed to be accounted for.
• Qualitative research speeds up the procedure for data capturing and keeping the costs of the data collection low.

Any type of research be it qualitative or quantitative, both the approaches have pros and cons. In the case of qualitative research, its value is undeniably linked to the numbers of quantitative data. Thus we can conclude that qualitative research is far more focused, experimental and concentrated in capturing the views and feelings of the participants.

About The Author

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Why do qualitative...

Why do qualitative research?

• Related content
• Peer review
• Roger Jones
• Wolfson professor of general practice Department of General Practice, UMDS (Guy's and St Thomas's), London SE11 6SP

It should begin to close the gap between the sciences of discovery and implementation

When Eliot asked “Where is the understanding we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” 1 he anticipated by half a century the important role of qualitative methodologies in health services research. In this week's journal Catherine Pope and Nick Mays introduce a series of articles on qualitative research that will describe the characteristics, scope, and applications of qualitative methodologies and, while distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative techniques, will emphasise that the two approaches should be regarded as complementary rather than competitive (p 42). 2

Qualitative research takes an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter; qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings that people bring to them. 3 Qualitative research begins by accepting that there is a range of different ways of making sense of the world and is concerned with discovering the meanings seen by those who are being researched and with understanding their view of the world rather than that of the researchers.

While qualitative and quantitative research may well investigate similar topics, each will address a different type of question. For example, in relation to adherence to drug treatment, a quantitative study will be used to determine the proportion and demographic characteristics of patients taking a certain percentage of prescribed drugs over a given period. To answer questions about the reasons for variations in adherence and the meaning of drug treatment in the lives of patients requires a qualitative approach. 4

Traditional quantitative methods such as randomised controlled trials are the appropriate means of testing the effect of an intervention or treatment, but a qualitative exploration of beliefs and understandings is likely to be needed to find out why the results of research are often not implemented in clinical practice. 5 The establishment of an evidence based medical culture clearly depends on contributions from both research traditions and from a number of disciplines that complement clinical medicine, including sociology, anthropology, psychology, and educational theory. 6

Qualitative research has struggled to find its present position in health services research. One reason may be that clinical scientists have had difficulty in accepting the research methodologies of the social sciences, in which the generation of hypotheses often replaces the testing of hypotheses, explanation replaces measurement, and understanding replaces generalisability. Publication and dissemination of the results of qualitative research have often been difficult, partly because different formats are required. A narrative, as opposed to numerate, account of an investigation may not fit into a typical biomedical journal or into a 10 minute presentation at a scientific meeting. The assessment of proposals for qualitative research and of papers submitted for publication is likely to have been hampered by a lack of agreement on criteria for assessment, although providing clear guidance to reviewers on this point is possible. 4

Incorporating qualitative research methodologies into research thinking, which means incorporating expert qualitative researchers into research teams, will enrich research in the NHS. As well as ensuring that the right methodology is brought to bear on the right question, a creative dialogue between the two traditions is likely to be of considerable mutual benefit. As well as strengthening capacity in research, a comprehensive approach to health services research should begin to close the gap between the sciences of discovery and the sciences of implementation.

• Denzin NK ,
• Britten N ,
• Kinmonth A-L

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 25, Issue 1
• Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5660-8224 Veronika Williams ,
• Anne-Marie Boylan ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-1276 David Nunan
• Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter , Oxford , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Veronika Williams, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; veronika.williams{at}phc.ox.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• qualitative research

Introduction

Qualitative evidence allows researchers to analyse human experience and provides useful exploratory insights into experiential matters and meaning, often explaining the ‘how’ and ‘why’. As we have argued previously 1 , qualitative research has an important place within evidence-based healthcare, contributing to among other things policy on patient safety, 2 prescribing, 3 4 and understanding chronic illness. 5 Equally, it offers additional insight into quantitative studies, explaining contextual factors surrounding a successful intervention or why an intervention might have ‘failed’ or ‘succeeded’ where effect sizes cannot. It is for these reasons that the MRC strongly recommends including qualitative evaluations when developing and evaluating complex interventions. 6

Critical appraisal of qualitative research

Is it necessary.

Although the importance of qualitative research to improve health services and care is now increasingly widely supported (discussed in paper 1), the role of appraising the quality of qualitative health research is still debated. 8 10 Despite a large body of literature focusing on appraisal and rigour, 9 11–15 often referred to as ‘trustworthiness’ 16 in qualitative research, there remains debate about how to —and even whether to—critically appraise qualitative research. 8–10 17–19 However, if we are to make a case for qualitative research as integral to evidence-based healthcare, then any argument to omit a crucial element of evidence-based practice is difficult to justify. That being said, simply applying the standards of rigour used to appraise studies based on the positivist paradigm (Positivism depends on quantifiable observations to test hypotheses and assumes that the researcher is independent of the study. Research situated within a positivist paradigm isbased purely on facts and consider the world to be external and objective and is concerned with validity, reliability and generalisability as measures of rigour.) would be misplaced given the different epistemological underpinnings of the two types of data.

Given its scope and its place within health research, the robust and systematic appraisal of qualitative research to assess its trustworthiness is as paramount to its implementation in clinical practice as any other type of research. It is important to appraise different qualitative studies in relation to the specific methodology used because the methodological approach is linked to the ‘outcome’ of the research (eg, theory development, phenomenological understandings and credibility of findings). Moreover, appraisal needs to go beyond merely describing the specific details of the methods used (eg, how data were collected and analysed), with additional focus needed on the overarching research design and its appropriateness in accordance with the study remit and objectives.

Poorly conducted qualitative research has been described as ‘worthless, becomes fiction and loses its utility’. 20 However, without a deep understanding of concepts of quality in qualitative research or at least an appropriate means to assess its quality, good qualitative research also risks being dismissed, particularly in the context of evidence-based healthcare where end users may not be well versed in this paradigm.

How is appraisal currently performed?

Appraising the quality of qualitative research is not a new concept—there are a number of published appraisal tools, frameworks and checklists in existence. 21–23  An important and often overlooked point is the confusion between tools designed for appraising methodological quality and reporting guidelines designed to assess the quality of methods reporting. An example is the Consolidate Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) 24 checklist, which was designed to provide standards for authors when reporting qualitative research but is often mistaken for a methods appraisal tool. 10

Broadly speaking there are two types of critical appraisal approaches for qualitative research: checklists and frameworks. Checklists have often been criticised for confusing quality in qualitative research with ‘technical fixes’ 21 25 , resulting in the erroneous prioritisation of particular aspects of methodological processes over others (eg, multiple coding and triangulation). It could be argued that a checklist approach adopts the positivist paradigm, where the focus is on objectively assessing ‘quality’ where the assumptions is that the researcher is independent of the research conducted. This may result in the application of quantitative understandings of bias in order to judge aspects of recruitment, sampling, data collection and analysis in qualitative research papers. One of the most widely used appraisal tools is the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) 26 and along with the JBI QARI (Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Assessment Instrument) 27 presents examples which tend to mimic the quantitative approach to appraisal. The CASP qualitative tool follows that of other CASP appraisal tools for quantitative research designs developed in the 1990s. The similarities are therefore unsurprising given the status of qualitative research at that time.

Frameworks focus on the overarching concepts of quality in qualitative research, including transparency, reflexivity, dependability and transferability (see box 1 ). 11–13 15 16 20 28 However, unless the reader is familiar with these concepts—their meaning and impact, and how to interpret them—they will have difficulty applying them when critically appraising a paper.

The main issue concerning currently available checklist and framework appraisal methods is that they take a broad brush approach to ‘qualitative’ research as whole, with few, if any, sufficiently differentiating between the different methodological approaches (eg, Grounded Theory, Interpretative Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis) nor different methods of data collection (interviewing, focus groups and observations). In this sense, it is akin to taking the entire field of ‘quantitative’ study designs and applying a single method or tool for their quality appraisal. In the case of qualitative research, checklists, therefore, offer only a blunt and arguably ineffective tool and potentially promote an incomplete understanding of good ‘quality’ in qualitative research. Likewise, current framework methods do not take into account how concepts differ in their application across the variety of qualitative approaches and, like checklists, they also do not differentiate between different qualitative methodologies.

On the need for specific appraisal tools

Current approaches to the appraisal of the methodological rigour of the differing types of qualitative research converge towards checklists or frameworks. More importantly, the current tools do not explicitly acknowledge the prejudices that may be present in the different types of qualitative research.

Concepts of rigour or trustworthiness within qualitative research 31

Transferability: the extent to which the presented study allows readers to make connections between the study’s data and wider community settings, ie, transfer conceptual findings to other contexts.

Credibility: extent to which a research account is believable and appropriate, particularly in relation to the stories told by participants and the interpretations made by the researcher.

Reflexivity: refers to the researchers’ engagement of continuous examination and explanation of how they have influenced a research project from choosing a research question to sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data.

Transparency: making explicit the whole research process from sampling strategies, data collection to analysis. The rationale for decisions made is as important as the decisions themselves.

However, we often talk about these concepts in general terms, and it might be helpful to give some explicit examples of how the ‘technical processes’ affect these, for example, partialities related to:

Selection: recruiting participants via gatekeepers, such as healthcare professionals or clinicians, who may select them based on whether they believe them to be ‘good’ participants for interviews/focus groups.

Data collection: poor interview guide with closed questions which encourage yes/no answers and/leading questions.

Reflexivity and transparency: where researchers may focus their analysis on preconceived ideas rather than ground their analysis in the data and do not reflect on the impact of this in a transparent way.

The lack of tailored, method-specific appraisal tools has potentially contributed to the poor uptake and use of qualitative research for informing evidence-based decision making. To improve this situation, we propose the need for more robust quality appraisal tools that explicitly encompass both the core design aspects of all qualitative research (sampling/data collection/analysis) but also considered the specific partialities that can be presented with different methodological approaches. Such tools might draw on the strengths of current frameworks and checklists while providing users with sufficient understanding of concepts of rigour in relation to the different types of qualitative methods. We provide an outline of such tools in the third and final paper in this series.

As qualitative research becomes ever more embedded in health science research, and in order for that research to have better impact on healthcare decisions, we need to rethink critical appraisal and develop tools that allow differentiated evaluations of the myriad of qualitative methodological approaches rather than continuing to treat qualitative research as a single unified approach.

• Williams V ,
• Boylan AM ,
• Lingard L ,
• Orser B , et al
• Brawn R , et al
• Van Royen P ,
• Vermeire E , et al
• Barker M , et al
• McGannon KR
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Agarwal S , et al
• Greenhalgh T ,
• Dennison L ,
• Morrison L ,
• Conway G , et al
• Barrett M ,
• Mayan M , et al
• Lockwood C ,
• Santiago-Delefosse M ,
• Bruchez C , et al
• Sainsbury P ,
• ↵ CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme). date unknown . http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm .
• ↵ The Joanna Briggs Institute . JBI QARI Critical appraisal checklist for interpretive & critical research . Adelaide : The Joanna Briggs Institute , 2014 .
• Stephens J ,

Contributors VW and DN: conceived the idea for this article. VW: wrote the first draft. AMB and DN: contributed to the final draft. All authors approve the submitted article.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Correction notice This article has been updated since its original publication to include a new reference (reference 1.)

Read the full text or download the PDF:

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: 05 October 2018

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

• P. Gill 1 &
• J. Baillie 2  

British Dental Journal volume  225 ,  pages 668–672 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

48 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Highlights that qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry. Interviews and focus groups remain the most common qualitative methods of data collection.

Suggests the advent of digital technologies has transformed how qualitative research can now be undertaken.

Suggests interviews and focus groups can offer significant, meaningful insight into participants' experiences, beliefs and perspectives, which can help to inform developments in dental practice.

Qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry, due to its potential to provide meaningful, in-depth insights into participants' experiences, perspectives, beliefs and behaviours. These insights can subsequently help to inform developments in dental practice and further related research. The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. While these are primarily conducted face-to-face, the ongoing evolution of digital technologies, such as video chat and online forums, has further transformed these methods of data collection. This paper therefore discusses interviews and focus groups in detail, outlines how they can be used in practice, how digital technologies can further inform the data collection process, and what these methods can offer dentistry.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology

A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research, introduction.

Traditionally, research in dentistry has primarily been quantitative in nature. 1 However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in qualitative research within the profession, due to its potential to further inform developments in practice, policy, education and training. Consequently, in 2008, the British Dental Journal (BDJ) published a four paper qualitative research series, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 to help increase awareness and understanding of this particular methodological approach.

Since the papers were originally published, two scoping reviews have demonstrated the ongoing proliferation in the use of qualitative research within the field of oral healthcare. 1 , 6 To date, the original four paper series continue to be well cited and two of the main papers remain widely accessed among the BDJ readership. 2 , 3 The potential value of well-conducted qualitative research to evidence-based practice is now also widely recognised by service providers, policy makers, funding bodies and those who commission, support and use healthcare research.

Besides increasing standalone use, qualitative methods are now also routinely incorporated into larger mixed method study designs, such as clinical trials, as they can offer additional, meaningful insights into complex problems that simply could not be provided by quantitative methods alone. Qualitative methods can also be used to further facilitate in-depth understanding of important aspects of clinical trial processes, such as recruitment. For example, Ellis et al . investigated why edentulous older patients, dissatisfied with conventional dentures, decline implant treatment, despite its established efficacy, and frequently refuse to participate in related randomised clinical trials, even when financial constraints are removed. 7 Through the use of focus groups in Canada and the UK, the authors found that fears of pain and potential complications, along with perceived embarrassment, exacerbated by age, are common reasons why older patients typically refuse dental implants. 7

The last decade has also seen further developments in qualitative research, due to the ongoing evolution of digital technologies. These developments have transformed how researchers can access and share information, communicate and collaborate, recruit and engage participants, collect and analyse data and disseminate and translate research findings. 8 Where appropriate, such technologies are therefore capable of extending and enhancing how qualitative research is undertaken. 9 For example, it is now possible to collect qualitative data via instant messaging, email or online/video chat, using appropriate online platforms.

These innovative approaches to research are therefore cost-effective, convenient, reduce geographical constraints and are often useful for accessing 'hard to reach' participants (for example, those who are immobile or socially isolated). 8 , 9 However, digital technologies are still relatively new and constantly evolving and therefore present a variety of pragmatic and methodological challenges. Furthermore, given their very nature, their use in many qualitative studies and/or with certain participant groups may be inappropriate and should therefore always be carefully considered. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed explication regarding the use of digital technologies in qualitative research, insight is provided into how such technologies can be used to facilitate the data collection process in interviews and focus groups.

In light of such developments, it is perhaps therefore timely to update the main paper 3 of the original BDJ series. As with the previous publications, this paper has been purposely written in an accessible style, to enhance readability, particularly for those who are new to qualitative research. While the focus remains on the most common qualitative methods of data collection – interviews and focus groups – appropriate revisions have been made to provide a novel perspective, and should therefore be helpful to those who would like to know more about qualitative research. This paper specifically focuses on undertaking qualitative research with adult participants only.

Overview of qualitative research

Qualitative research is an approach that focuses on people and their experiences, behaviours and opinions. 10 , 11 The qualitative researcher seeks to answer questions of 'how' and 'why', providing detailed insight and understanding, 11 which quantitative methods cannot reach. 12 Within qualitative research, there are distinct methodologies influencing how the researcher approaches the research question, data collection and data analysis. 13 For example, phenomenological studies focus on the lived experience of individuals, explored through their description of the phenomenon. Ethnographic studies explore the culture of a group and typically involve the use of multiple methods to uncover the issues. 14

While methodology is the 'thinking tool', the methods are the 'doing tools'; 13 the ways in which data are collected and analysed. There are multiple qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, focus groups, observations, documentary analysis, participant diaries, photography and videography. Two of the most commonly used qualitative methods are interviews and focus groups, which are explored in this article. The data generated through these methods can be analysed in one of many ways, according to the methodological approach chosen. A common approach is thematic data analysis, involving the identification of themes and subthemes across the data set. Further information on approaches to qualitative data analysis has been discussed elsewhere. 1

Qualitative research is an evolving and adaptable approach, used by different disciplines for different purposes. Traditionally, qualitative data, specifically interviews, focus groups and observations, have been collected face-to-face with participants. In more recent years, digital technologies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of qualitative research. Digital technologies offer researchers different ways of recruiting participants and collecting data, and offer participants opportunities to be involved in research that is not necessarily face-to-face.

Research interviews are a fundamental qualitative research method 15 and are utilised across methodological approaches. Interviews enable the researcher to learn in depth about the perspectives, experiences, beliefs and motivations of the participant. 3 , 16 Examples include, exploring patients' perspectives of fear/anxiety triggers in dental treatment, 17 patients' experiences of oral health and diabetes, 18 and dental students' motivations for their choice of career. 19

Interviews may be structured, semi-structured or unstructured, 3 according to the purpose of the study, with less structured interviews facilitating a more in depth and flexible interviewing approach. 20 Structured interviews are similar to verbal questionnaires and are used if the researcher requires clarification on a topic; however they produce less in-depth data about a participant's experience. 3 Unstructured interviews may be used when little is known about a topic and involves the researcher asking an opening question; 3 the participant then leads the discussion. 20 Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in healthcare research, enabling the researcher to ask predetermined questions, 20 while ensuring the participant discusses issues they feel are important.

Interviews can be undertaken face-to-face or using digital methods when the researcher and participant are in different locations. Audio-recording the interview, with the consent of the participant, is essential for all interviews regardless of the medium as it enables accurate transcription; the process of turning the audio file into a word-for-word transcript. This transcript is the data, which the researcher then analyses according to the chosen approach.

Types of interview

Qualitative studies often utilise one-to-one, face-to-face interviews with research participants. This involves arranging a mutually convenient time and place to meet the participant, signing a consent form and audio-recording the interview. However, digital technologies have expanded the potential for interviews in research, enabling individuals to participate in qualitative research regardless of location.

Telephone interviews can be a useful alternative to face-to-face interviews and are commonly used in qualitative research. They enable participants from different geographical areas to participate and may be less onerous for participants than meeting a researcher in person. 15 A qualitative study explored patients' perspectives of dental implants and utilised telephone interviews due to the quality of the data that could be yielded. 21 The researcher needs to consider how they will audio record the interview, which can be facilitated by purchasing a recorder that connects directly to the telephone. One potential disadvantage of telephone interviews is the inability of the interviewer and researcher to see each other. This is resolved using software for audio and video calls online – such as Skype – to conduct interviews with participants in qualitative studies. Advantages of this approach include being able to see the participant if video calls are used, enabling observation of non-verbal communication, and the software can be free to use. However, participants are required to have a device and internet connection, as well as being computer literate, potentially limiting who can participate in the study. One qualitative study explored the role of dental hygienists in reducing oral health disparities in Canada. 22 The researcher conducted interviews using Skype, which enabled dental hygienists from across Canada to be interviewed within the research budget, accommodating the participants' schedules. 22

A less commonly used approach to qualitative interviews is the use of social virtual worlds. A qualitative study accessed a social virtual world – Second Life – to explore the health literacy skills of individuals who use social virtual worlds to access health information. 23 The researcher created an avatar and interview room, and undertook interviews with participants using voice and text methods. 23 This approach to recruitment and data collection enables individuals from diverse geographical locations to participate, while remaining anonymous if they wish. Furthermore, for interviews conducted using text methods, transcription of the interview is not required as the researcher can save the written conversation with the participant, with the participant's consent. However, the researcher and participant need to be familiar with how the social virtual world works to engage in an interview this way.

Conducting an interview

Ensuring informed consent before any interview is a fundamental aspect of the research process. Participants in research must be afforded autonomy and respect; consent should be informed and voluntary. 24 Individuals should have the opportunity to read an information sheet about the study, ask questions, understand how their data will be stored and used, and know that they are free to withdraw at any point without reprisal. The qualitative researcher should take written consent before undertaking the interview. In a face-to-face interview, this is straightforward: the researcher and participant both sign copies of the consent form, keeping one each. However, this approach is less straightforward when the researcher and participant do not meet in person. A recent protocol paper outlined an approach for taking consent for telephone interviews, which involved: audio recording the participant agreeing to each point on the consent form; the researcher signing the consent form and keeping a copy; and posting a copy to the participant. 25 This process could be replicated in other interview studies using digital methods.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using face-to-face and digital methods for research interviews. Ultimately, for both approaches, the quality of the interview is determined by the researcher. 16 Appropriate training and preparation are thus required. Healthcare professionals can use their interpersonal communication skills when undertaking a research interview, particularly questioning, listening and conversing. 3 However, the purpose of an interview is to gain information about the study topic, 26 rather than offering help and advice. 3 The researcher therefore needs to listen attentively to participants, enabling them to describe their experience without interruption. 3 The use of active listening skills also help to facilitate the interview. 14 Spradley outlined elements and strategies for research interviews, 27 which are a useful guide for qualitative researchers:

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

Asking descriptive (broad), structural (explore response to descriptive) and contrast (difference between) questions

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

Repeating, restating and incorporating the participant's words when asking questions

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

For semi-structured interviews, a topic guide (also called an interview schedule) is used to guide the content of the interview – an example of a topic guide is outlined in Box 1 . The topic guide, usually based on the research questions, existing literature and, for healthcare professionals, their clinical experience, is developed by the research team. The topic guide should include open ended questions that elicit in-depth information, and offer participants the opportunity to talk about issues important to them. This is vital in qualitative research where the researcher is interested in exploring the experiences and perspectives of participants. It can be useful for qualitative researchers to pilot the topic guide with the first participants, 10 to ensure the questions are relevant and understandable, and amending the questions if required.

Regardless of the medium of interview, the researcher must consider the setting of the interview. For face-to-face interviews, this could be in the participant's home, in an office or another mutually convenient location. A quiet location is preferable to promote confidentiality, enable the researcher and participant to concentrate on the conversation, and to facilitate accurate audio-recording of the interview. For interviews using digital methods the same principles apply: a quiet, private space where the researcher and participant feel comfortable and confident to participate in an interview.

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

Study focus: Parents' experiences of brushing their child's (aged 0–5) teeth

1. Can you tell me about your experience of cleaning your child's teeth?

How old was your child when you started cleaning their teeth?

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

2. Could you explain how you find cleaning your child's teeth?

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

3. How has your experience of cleaning your child's teeth changed over time?

Has it become easier or harder?

Have you changed how often and how you clean their teeth? If so, why?

4. Could you describe how your child finds having their teeth cleaned?

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

Is there anything they find upsetting about having their teeth cleaned?

5. Where do you look for information/advice about cleaning your child's teeth?

What did your health visitor tell you about cleaning your child's teeth? (If anything)

What has the dentist told you about caring for your child's teeth? (If visited)

Have any family members given you advice about how to clean your child's teeth? If so, what did they tell you? Did you follow their advice?

6. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this?

Focus groups

A focus group is a moderated group discussion on a pre-defined topic, for research purposes. 28 , 29 While not aligned to a particular qualitative methodology (for example, grounded theory or phenomenology) as such, focus groups are used increasingly in healthcare research, as they are useful for exploring collective perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Consequently, they can yield rich, in-depth data and illuminate agreement and inconsistencies 28 within and, where appropriate, between groups. Examples include public perceptions of dental implants and subsequent impact on help-seeking and decision making, 30 and general dental practitioners' views on patient safety in dentistry. 31

Focus groups can be used alone or in conjunction with other methods, such as interviews or observations, and can therefore help to confirm, extend or enrich understanding and provide alternative insights. 28 The social interaction between participants often results in lively discussion and can therefore facilitate the collection of rich, meaningful data. However, they are complex to organise and manage, due to the number of participants, and may also be inappropriate for exploring particularly sensitive issues that many participants may feel uncomfortable about discussing in a group environment.

Focus groups are primarily undertaken face-to-face but can now also be undertaken online, using appropriate technologies such as email, bulletin boards, online research communities, chat rooms, discussion forums, social media and video conferencing. 32 Using such technologies, data collection can also be synchronous (for example, online discussions in 'real time') or, unlike traditional face-to-face focus groups, asynchronous (for example, online/email discussions in 'non-real time'). While many of the fundamental principles of focus group research are the same, regardless of how they are conducted, a number of subtle nuances are associated with the online medium. 32 Some of which are discussed further in the following sections.

Focus group considerations

Some key considerations associated with face-to-face focus groups are: how many participants are required; should participants within each group know each other (or not) and how many focus groups are needed within a single study? These issues are much debated and there is no definitive answer. However, the number of focus groups required will largely depend on the topic area, the depth and breadth of data needed, the desired level of participation required 29 and the necessity (or not) for data saturation.

The optimum group size is around six to eight participants (excluding researchers) but can work effectively with between three and 14 participants. 3 If the group is too small, it may limit discussion, but if it is too large, it may become disorganised and difficult to manage. It is, however, prudent to over-recruit for a focus group by approximately two to three participants, to allow for potential non-attenders. For many researchers, particularly novice researchers, group size may also be informed by pragmatic considerations, such as the type of study, resources available and moderator experience. 28 Similar size and mix considerations exist for online focus groups. Typically, synchronous online focus groups will have around three to eight participants but, as the discussion does not happen simultaneously, asynchronous groups may have as many as 10–30 participants. 33

The topic area and potential group interaction should guide group composition considerations. Pre-existing groups, where participants know each other (for example, work colleagues) may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and may enjoy a familiarity, which facilitates discussion and/or the ability to challenge each other courteously. 3 However, if there is a potential power imbalance within the group or if existing group norms and hierarchies may adversely affect the ability of participants to speak freely, then 'stranger groups' (that is, where participants do not already know each other) may be more appropriate. 34 , 35

Focus group management

Face-to-face focus groups should normally be conducted by two researchers; a moderator and an observer. 28 The moderator facilitates group discussion, while the observer typically monitors group dynamics, behaviours, non-verbal cues, seating arrangements and speaking order, which is essential for transcription and analysis. The same principles of informed consent, as discussed in the interview section, also apply to focus groups, regardless of medium. However, the consent process for online discussions will probably be managed somewhat differently. For example, while an appropriate participant information leaflet (and consent form) would still be required, the process is likely to be managed electronically (for example, via email) and would need to specifically address issues relating to technology (for example, anonymity and use, storage and access to online data). 32

The venue in which a face to face focus group is conducted should be of a suitable size, private, quiet, free from distractions and in a collectively convenient location. It should also be conducted at a time appropriate for participants, 28 as this is likely to promote attendance. As with interviews, the same ethical considerations apply (as discussed earlier). However, online focus groups may present additional ethical challenges associated with issues such as informed consent, appropriate access and secure data storage. Further guidance can be found elsewhere. 8 , 32

Before the focus group commences, the researchers should establish rapport with participants, as this will help to put them at ease and result in a more meaningful discussion. Consequently, researchers should introduce themselves, provide further clarity about the study and how the process will work in practice and outline the 'ground rules'. Ground rules are designed to assist, not hinder, group discussion and typically include: 3 , 28 , 29

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

Everyone can be expected to be listened to and their views respected

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

Moderating a focus group requires considered management and good interpersonal skills to help guide the discussion and, where appropriate, keep it sufficiently focused. Avoid, therefore, participating, leading, expressing personal opinions or correcting participants' knowledge 3 , 28 as this may bias the process. A relaxed, interested demeanour will also help participants to feel comfortable and promote candid discourse. Moderators should also prevent the discussion being dominated by any one person, ensure differences of opinions are discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants to contribute. 3 Asking open questions, reflecting on significant issues, inviting further debate, probing responses accordingly, and seeking further clarification, as and where appropriate, will help to obtain sufficient depth and insight into the topic area.

Moderating online focus groups requires comparable skills, particularly if the discussion is synchronous, as the discussion may be dominated by those who can type proficiently. 36 It is therefore important that sufficient time and respect is accorded to those who may not be able to type as quickly. Asynchronous discussions are usually less problematic in this respect, as interactions are less instant. However, moderating an asynchronous discussion presents additional challenges, particularly if participants are geographically dispersed, as they may be online at different times. Consequently, the moderator will not always be present and the discussion may therefore need to occur over several days, which can be difficult to manage and facilitate and invariably requires considerable flexibility. 32 It is also worth recognising that establishing rapport with participants via online medium is often more challenging than via face-to-face and may therefore require additional time, skills, effort and consideration.

As with research interviews, focus groups should be guided by an appropriate interview schedule, as discussed earlier in the paper. For example, the schedule will usually be informed by the review of the literature and study aims, and will merely provide a topic guide to help inform subsequent discussions. To provide a verbatim account of the discussion, focus groups must be recorded, using an audio-recorder with a good quality multi-directional microphone. While videotaping is possible, some participants may find it obtrusive, 3 which may adversely affect group dynamics. The use (or not) of a video recorder, should therefore be carefully considered.

At the end of the focus group, a few minutes should be spent rounding up and reflecting on the discussion. 28 Depending on the topic area, it is possible that some participants may have revealed deeply personal issues and may therefore require further help and support, such as a constructive debrief or possibly even referral on to a relevant third party. It is also possible that some participants may feel that the discussion did not adequately reflect their views and, consequently, may no longer wish to be associated with the study. 28 Such occurrences are likely to be uncommon, but should they arise, it is important to further discuss any concerns and, if appropriate, offer them the opportunity to withdraw (including any data relating to them) from the study. Immediately after the discussion, researchers should compile notes regarding thoughts and ideas about the focus group, which can assist with data analysis and, if appropriate, any further data collection.

Qualitative research is increasingly being utilised within dental research to explore the experiences, perspectives, motivations and beliefs of participants. The contributions of qualitative research to evidence-based practice are increasingly being recognised, both as standalone research and as part of larger mixed-method studies, including clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups remain commonly used data collection methods in qualitative research, and with the advent of digital technologies, their utilisation continues to evolve. However, digital methods of qualitative data collection present additional methodological, ethical and practical considerations, but also potentially offer considerable flexibility to participants and researchers. Consequently, regardless of format, qualitative methods have significant potential to inform important areas of dental practice, policy and further related research.

Gussy M, Dickson-Swift V, Adams J . A scoping review of qualitative research in peer-reviewed dental publications. Int J Dent Hygiene 2013; 11 : 174–179.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 429–432.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 291–295.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 371–374.

Stewart K, Gill P, Chadwick B, Treasure E . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 235–239.

Masood M, Thaliath E, Bower E, Newton J . An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39 : 193–203.

Ellis J, Levine A, Bedos C et al. Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients. Gerodontology 2011; 28 : 62–68.

Macfarlane S, Bucknall T . Digital Technologies in Research. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . 7th edition. pp. 71–86. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Lee R, Fielding N, Blank G . Online Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An Editorial Introduction. In Fielding N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 3–16. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

Creswell J . Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M . Qualitative research: Defining and designing In Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M (editors) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual For Applied Research . pp. 1–40. London: Sage Publications, 2013.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pope C, Mays N . Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311 : 42–45.

Giddings L, Grant B . A Trojan Horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Adv Nurs Sci 2007; 30 : 52–60.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: Principles in Practice . London: Routledge, 1995.

Oltmann S . Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2016; 17 : Art. 15.

Patton M . Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Wang M, Vinall-Collier K, Csikar J, Douglas G . A qualitative study of patients' views of techniques to reduce dental anxiety. J Dent 2017; 66 : 45–51.

Lindenmeyer A, Bowyer V, Roscoe J, Dale J, Sutcliffe P . Oral health awareness and care preferences in patients with diabetes: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2013; 30 : 113–118.

Gallagher J, Clarke W, Wilson N . Understanding the motivation: a qualitative study of dental students' choice of professional career. Eur J Dent Educ 2008; 12 : 89–98.

Tod A . Interviewing. In Gerrish K, Lacey A (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Grey E, Harcourt D, O'Sullivan D, Buchanan H, Kipatrick N . A qualitative study of patients' motivations and expectations for dental implants. Br Dent J 2013; 214 : 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1178.

Farmer J, Peressini S, Lawrence H . Exploring the role of the dental hygienist in reducing oral health disparities in Canada: A qualitative study. Int J Dent Hygiene 2017; 10.1111/idh.12276.

McElhinney E, Cheater F, Kidd L . Undertaking qualitative health research in social virtual worlds. J Adv Nurs 2013; 70 : 1267–1275.

Health Research Authority. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. Available at https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/ (accessed September 2017).

Baillie J, Gill P, Courtenay P . Knowledge, understanding and experiences of peritonitis among patients, and their families, undertaking peritoneal dialysis: A mixed methods study protocol. J Adv Nurs 2017; 10.1111/jan.13400.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1996.

Spradley J . The Ethnographic Interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Goodman C, Evans C . Focus Groups. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . pp. 401–412. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.

Shaha M, Wenzell J, Hill E . Planning and conducting focus group research with nurses. Nurse Res 2011; 18 : 77–87.

Wang G, Gao X, Edward C . Public perception of dental implants: a qualitative study. J Dent 2015; 43 : 798–805.

Bailey E . Contemporary views of dental practitioners' on patient safety. Br Dent J 2015; 219 : 535–540.

Abrams K, Gaiser T . Online Focus Groups. In Field N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 435–450. London: Sage Publications, 2016.

Poynter R . The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Kevern J, Webb C . Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2001; 21 : 323–333.

Kitzinger J, Barbour R . Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus Groups. In Barbour R S K J (editor) Developing Focus Group Research . pp. 1–20. London: Sage Publications, 1999.

Krueger R, Casey M . Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J 225 , 668–672 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

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

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions.

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

• Abimbola M. Oladayo
• Oluwakemi Odukoya
• Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

Assessment of women’s needs, wishes and preferences regarding interprofessional guidance on nutrition in pregnancy – a qualitative study

• Merle Ebinghaus
• Caroline Johanna Agricola
• Birgit-Christiane Zyriax

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2024)

‘Baby mamas’ in Urban Ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in Accra, Ghana

• Rosemond Akpene Hiadzi
• Jemima Akweley Agyeman
• Godwin Banafo Akrong

Reproductive Health (2023)

Revolutionising dental technologies: a qualitative study on dental technicians’ perceptions of Artificial intelligence integration

• Galvin Sim Siang Lin
• Yook Shiang Ng
• Kah Hoay Chua

BMC Oral Health (2023)

Quick links

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

• Open access
• Published: 06 May 2024

“We know what we should be eating, but we don’t always do that.” How and why people eat the way they do: a qualitative study with rural australians

• Nina Van Dyke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8872-3451 1 ,
• Michael Murphy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0434-4567 2 &
• Eric J. Drinkwater   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9594-9360 3  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  1240 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

206 Accesses

Metrics details

There is evidence that most people are aware of the importance of healthy eating and have a broad understanding regarding types of food that enhance or detract from health. However, greater health literacy does not always result in healthier eating. Andreasen’s Social Marketing Model and Community-Based Social Marketing both posit that, in order to change health behaviours, it is crucial to understand reasons for current behaviours and perceived barriers and benefits to improved behaviours. Limited research has been conducted, however, that explores these issues with general populations. This study aimed to help address this gap in the evidence using a qualitative methodology.

Three group discussions were conducted with a total of 23 participants: (1) young women aged 18–24 with no children; (2) women aged 35–45 with primary school aged children; and (3) men aged 35–50 living with a partner and with pre- or primary school aged children. The discussions took place in a regional centre of Victoria, Australia. Transcriptions were thematically analysed using an inductive descriptive approach and with reference to a recent integrated framework of food choice that identified five key interrelated determinants: food– internal factors; food– external factors; personal-state factors; cognitive factors; and sociocultural factors.

We found that food choice was complex, with all five determinants evident from the discussions. However, the “Social environment” sub-category of “Food-external factors”, which included family, work, and social structures, and expectations (or perceived expectations) of family members, colleagues, friends, and others, was particularly prominent. Knowledge that one should practice healthy eating, which falls under the “Cognitive factor” category, while seen as an aspiration by most participants, was often viewed as unrealistic, trumped by the need and/or desire for convenience, a combination of Food-external factor: Social environment and Personal-state factor: Psychological components.

Conclusions

We found that decisions regarding what, when, and how much to eat are seen as heavily influenced by factors outside the control of the individual. It appears, therefore, that a key to improving people’s eating behaviours is to make it easy to eat more healthfully, or at least not much harder than eating poorly.

Peer Review reports

A plethora of recommendations exist regarding how people should eat to maintain better health [e.g., 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Moreover, there is evidence that most people have a reasonable awareness of connections between healthier foods and better health, and a broad understanding regarding types of food that enhance or detract from health [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. However, greater health literacy does not always result in healthier eating [ 7 – 8 ].

Evidence suggests that public health and health-promotion interventions with a theoretical basis are more effective than those lacking such a foundation [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Andreasen’s Social Marketing Model [ 12 ] posits that a primary focus for behaviour change is on learning what people want and need rather than trying to persuade them to adopt particular behaviours or goals. Community-based social marketing sets out six steps necessary for enacting societal behavioural change; step two is to understand perceived barriers and benefits to develop interventions [ 13 ].

Limited research has been conducted, however, that explores how people in the general population eat and their perceptions regarding why they eat the way they do [ 14 – 15 ]. Although several recent papers have examined barriers to and enablers of healthier eating [e.g., 16 ], relatively few are from the perspective of the consumers themselves [e.g., 17 – 18 ] or are narrowly focused on particular types of healthy consumption [e.g., 19 ].

Healthy eating: knowing vs. doing

Food-based dietary guidelines are available for more than 90 countries globally. Although there is some variation across guidelines regarding particular foods, there is broad agreement to consume a variety of foods; consume some foods in higher proportion than others; consume fruits, vegetables, and legumes; and to limit sugar, fat, and salt [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].

There is mixed evidence regarding whether most people broadly understand what constitutes a healthy diet and believe they should try to eat healthily. A systematic review of the psychological literature on healthy diet, for example, found that the public has a “remarkably accurate” understanding of healthy nutrition and that this understanding reflects key dietary guidelines [ 23 ]. Focus groups with participants segmented by age and gender found that most participants were aware of the type of foods that contributed to a healthy diet and the importance of achieving a healthy balance within a diet [ 24 ]. Other studies, however, have found evidence of confusion and misperceptions amongst the general public. A cross-sectional survey of 1,097 adults aged 18–64 in Victoria, Australia and 135 professional dietitians, for example, found large discrepancies in which of various food items were considered healthy. Amongst women and those living in higher socio-economic areas, however, views were similar [ 25 ]. An earlier survey of Swiss consumers found that between 3% and 38% incorrectly answered procedural nutrition knowledge items. Again, this overall finding differed by sub-groups [ 26 ].

However, this knowledge does not necessarily result in healthy eating [ 27 ]. A systematic review of the relationship between nutrition knowledge and dietary intake found that the majority of studies reported significant, positive associations, but the relationship was weak ( r  < 0.5 ) and mostly involved slightly higher intake of fruits and vegetables. The authors also noted that study quality ranged widely and that most participants were female and with a tertiary education, with limited representation of individuals from lower socio-economic status background [ 28 ]. A qualitative study with adults in New Zealand reported “the impossible rightness of healthy eating”, meaning that the people in their study knew they should be eating healthfully, but simultaneously felt that this was very difficult or impossible to do [ 29 ]. A Canadian study argued that the concept of "food literacy" needed to extend beyond nutritional recommendations and cooking lessons to fostering connections between food, people, health, and the environment to bridge this gap between knowing and doing [ 30 ].

Theoretical frameworks

Andreasen’s Social Marketing Model [ 12 ] presents behaviour change as the dependent variable, influenced by four classes of independent variables: (1) the attractiveness of behavioural alternatives, (2) community pressures, (3) the cooperation of critical supporting agencies, and (4) marketing efforts. Of specific relevance to this study, Andreasen [ 12 ] posits that a primary focus for behaviour change is on learning what people want and need rather than trying to persuade them to adopt particular behaviours or goals.

Also relevant is Community-Based Social Marketing. Community-Based Social Marketing is based on six steps. Step one is to identify the target behaviour– in this case, unhealthy eating. Step two is to understand perceived barriers and benefits to develop interventions [ 13 ]. It is this second step that we focus on in this study.

• Food choice

Decisions regarding what food to eat, when, and in what quantity are “frequent, multifaceted, situational, dynamic, and complex” [ 31 ]. A recent review and analysis of existing models of food choice integrates key elements into a single framework (Fig.  1 ) [ 32 ]. In this framework, key determinants of general food choice were identified and categorised, including Food– internal factor (sensory and perceptual features), Food– external factor (information, social environment, physical environment), Personal– state factor (biological features and physiological needs, psychological components, habits and experiences), Cognitive factor (knowledge and skills, attitude, liking and preference, anticipated consequences, and personal identity), and Sociocultural factors (culture, economic variables, political elements). According to this framework, any attempt to shift choice must consider these interrelated factors.

Conceptual model of food choice. The lines in the figure indicate the interactions between different factors [ 32 ]

Literature on perceived barriers and enablers of healthy eating

Most of the recent evidence on perceived barriers to and enablers of healthy eating focuses on particular sub-populations, such as young people with obesity, shift workers, or people with Type 2 diabetes [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ], and/or a particular type of diet, such as the Mediterranean Diet [ 38 – 39 ].

Studies examining more general populations tend to focus on younger people. A scoping review of barriers to and enablers of healthy eating for young adults in Western countries, for example, identified the following barriers: male apathy towards diet; unhealthy diet of friends and family; expected consumption of unhealthy foods in certain situations; relative low cost of unhealthy foods; lack of time to plan, shop, prepare, and cook healthy foods; lack of facilities to prepare, cook and store healthy foods; widespread presence of unhealthy foods; lack of knowledge and skills to plan, shop, prepare, and cook healthy foods; and lack of motivation to eat healthily (including risk-taking behaviour). Key enablers included: female interest in a healthy diet; healthy diet of friends and family; support/encouragement of friends and family to eat healthily; desire for improved health; desire for weight management; desire for improved self-esteem; desire for attractiveness to potential partners and others; possessing autonomous motivation to eat healthily and existence and use of self-regulatory skills [ 40 ]. A qualitative study of college students aged 18–24 at one university in Hawaii, U.S., of perceived barriers to and enablers of healthy eating found the largest barriers to be nutrition knowledge deficit, peer pressure, unsupportive institutional environment, and cost. The largest enablers were nutrition knowledge, parental influence, an institutional environment with consistent healthy offerings, and social media. It was noted that several of these factors served as barriers for some participants and enablers for others, such as nutrition knowledge, parental influence, and institutional environment [ 41 ]. Another qualitative study with college students at a U.S. college found that common barriers to healthy eating were time constraints, unhealthy snacking, convenience high-calorie food, stress, high prices of healthy food, and easy access to junk food. Conversely, enablers to healthy behaviour were improved food knowledge and education, meal planning, involvement in food preparation, and being physically active. Parental food behaviour and friends’ social pressure were considered to have both positive and negative influences on individual eating habits [ 42 ]. Much of this food choice literature identified the importance of social factors and social norms [ 43 – 44 ].

Limited research exists that explores why people in a general population eat the way they do and what, from their perspective, are the barriers and enablers to doing so. From a public health perspective, such evidence is crucial for developing population-level interventions or advocating for policy change. This study aimed to help address this gap in the evidence by using a qualitative methodology to explore the eating patterns and process by which eating decisions were made amongst a general population of non-metropolitan adults in Australia. A non-metropolitan sample was chosen for several reasons. First, Australians living in rural and remote areas experience higher rates of diet-related disease when compared to urban residents, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, and obesity [ 45 – 46 ]. Second, access to healthy food is more challenging in rural and remote Australia due to further distances from urban centres and higher prices [ 47 – 48 ]. Third, Australians living in rural and remote areas experience greater socio-economic disadvantage than those living in urban areas [ 49 ], which makes healthy food relatively more unaffordable. Finally, most qualitative research in Australia tends to be conducted with people in metropolitan areas, with less known about people living in non-metropolitan locations.

This study is part of a larger, mixed-methods study examining eating behaviours. Data collection took place in 2010. A detailed discussion of the methodology employed for the qualitative component has been published previously in a paper examining what people think of intuitive eating [ 50 ]. Other papers published from this study include a quantitative investigation of the associations between intuitive eating and indicators of physical and mental health [ 51 ], a review of the literature on the relationship between intuitive eating and health indicators [ 52 ], and an experimental study testing whether the accuracy of self-reported height and weight in surveys could be improved by changes to the question wording [ 53 ].

Study design and participants

Three group discussions were conducted with a total of 23 participants: (1) young women aged 18–24 with no children; (2) women aged 35–45 with primary school aged children; and (3) men aged 35–50 living with a partner and with pre- or primary school aged children. These three group demographics were selected to target significant age and life-stages in which shifts in eating behaviours may occur [ 54 ]. The groups were conducted in Bendigo, a regional centre of Victoria, Australia, with participants recruited from Bendigo city and outlying areas.

Recruitment was conducted by a professional recruitment agency. Participants were paid AUD70. Participants were chosen such that at least two in each group had previously been on a weight loss diet and at least two had never been on a weight loss diet; at least three in each group were “over my most healthy weight”.

All focus groups were conducted in a hotel conference room facility in Bendigo and were recorded for the purposes of analysis. The groups began with a general discussion about food choices and approaches to eating, including discussion of the factors that influenced food choices. Topics included influences on eating decisions– what, when, how much; eating patterns– when, why, what; feelings around eating; enjoyment of food/eating; and the role that healthy eating played in their decisions around food.

Data analysis

With the permission of participants, all research sessions were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were thematically analysed using an inductive descriptive approach [ 55 – 56 ].

This study received ethics approval from the Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee (2010/144).

The conversations about what people ate in terms of choice of food and the amount consumed were contextualised within an appreciation of participants’ living and working situations. While it was beyond the scope of this study to provide a documentation of the diets of participants, some information was provided about specific food preferences. However, the main interest was on the factors that affected their food choices.

Across the groups, there was a general and consistent belief that what one ate was affected by a range of factors, and that as a consequence, none of these participants felt that they were entirely in control of their own diets. While some of these factors were personal, others were felt to be determined by family, work and other social structures.

Participants were clear that the term, “diet”, while most obviously associated with weight loss, can be used to refer to general eating patterns or specific kinds of approaches to eating. Hence, the term, “diet” will be used in this paper to refer to the usual or regular food and patterns of eating. When the topic is related to a specific kind of diet that is being pursued for a particular purpose, this is referred to as the specific kind of diet, and when the specific purpose is related to weight loss, we have referred to this as a “weight loss diet”.

As an inductive approach was used in the analysis, we did not endeavour to match identified themes to the factors presented in the Chen and Antonelli [ 32 ] model. Instead, we discuss how our findings align with this model in the Discussion section. Seven main themes were identified, most with several sub-themes. Main themes included taste and health considerations, family factors, work and workplaces, social factors, planning and preparation, meal patterns, and perceptions of own eating.

Taste and health considerations

Across the groups, participants commonly talked about foods that they liked or did not like and suggested that food tastes and preferences were a primary determinant of their diets. In each group, there was some discussion of eating according to what one feels like at the time. However, it was apparent that this approach tended to mean that people’s eating varied widely in terms of eating healthily or otherwise. While they might experience times when they simply felt like foods that they considered to be healthy, it was apparent that these cravings were not the norm, and that some were almost surprised at the idea of desiring salads or vegetables.

Some days you feel like eating cold meat and salad for tea, or some days you’ll just eat a whole loaf of garlic bread. (Women, 18–24)

Some noted that food preferences seem to go in phases.

I’ve just gone off those. (Women, 18–24)

Participants also commonly talked about health as a factor that would influence their diet, but that they tended to wax and wane in terms of their degree of commitment to maintaining a healthy diet. Even those who reported being quite focussed on health as a motivator felt that it was quite hard to consistently maintain a healthy diet, and that there would be times when they did not feel like making the effort. Underlying these thoughts was a belief that eating healthily was hard work, and certainly harder than eating for convenience.

Mine varies between wanting to be super detox, organic; as natural as possible to, um, I’m totally energy depleted, give me some carbs. So I will, like, live a contradictory diet by having regular meals that are semi-regular, so really, really good, and then just crash and you know you get into work and you come home and you haven’t had time for a proper lunch or you didn’t, you know, take the time to prepare it and they come home after school and… well, it annoys me because I want to be consistent basically, and I want to be role model for my kids as well. (Women, 35–45) Oh, I have had…I’ll have the healthy breakfast for you know a week or two and then I think, “Oh, I’m sick of that, I’ll just go for toast. You get a bit tired of being strong and healthy. (Women, 35–45)

Some mentioned specific health concerns, including particular diseases or even injuries that affected their capacity to prepare meals.

Oh, our eating habits are very erratic at the moment because I’m not cooking because of an injury, and my husband has to cook so if he’s late home from work, usually the kids have made something for themselves, like a chicken burger or a slice of bread, or a can of spaghetti or something like that. (Women, 35–45)

Within these discussions, it was apparent that participants’ knowledge about nutrition and health varied considerably, and that their level of knowledge did tend to affect food choices. Some participants talked about the idea of balance, and of making choices to ensure a balance of food over the day or week. For some, balance was also about compensating for other aspects of life and health, such as smoking or drinking or physical activity. Some of the men, in particular, talked about doing more activity to compensate for having eaten too much or consumed too much alcohol.

For me, like if I’ve eaten too much, one night I know I’ve got this exercise the next day, so I have to go to the gym or get up in the morning and do some physical activity. (Men, 35–50) Yeah to me I was the same, I used to smoke and I still drink every now and then you know, I’ll try to keep fit and I know if I eat too much, I’ve got to try and do some exercises to balance it out. (Men, 35–50) I do heaps of exercise because I love eating… I run so that I can eat. (Men, 35–50)

Family factors

Time and convenience.

Throughout the discussions, it was apparent that food choices were substantially affected by factors associated with time and convenience. Participants talked about having busy schedules (e.g., family, work, school, sports), and that these activities had an impact on both the choice and timing of food.

Convenience, especially in terms of the time available for food preparation, was a major factor in food choices. In this context, participants referred to take-away foods, frozen or pre-prepared foods, and meals that were quick to prepare as offering considerable advantage in terms of fitting in with their lifestyles. As noted later, these factors interacted with the time of the week, so that weekdays tended to be more hectic with less time available for food preparation, while weekends commonly afforded greater choice.

Household members

Across the groups, participants reported that the choice of food that they consumed at any particular time was not always entirely up to them. Rather, what they ate at any particular meal was commonly affected by where they were eating, who else they were eating with, and other people’s food preferences. This was especially an issue for people who lived with others, most obviously those who were parents and were catering for children and spouses, but also for those who lived in shared households. In this context, the household makeup was a primary determinant of food choices and approaches to eating. This included the mix of males and females in the household as well as the age of children.

That’s me: quick and easy. And I love the chance when I can actually get a recipe, get all the, um, ingredients and make it properly, but that doesn’t happen very often. It’s just usually what’s there and what’s quick. And what everyone will eat. (Women, 35–45) Oh, yes, that’s a big one for me of having four children and a couple of fussy buggers. You do tend to stick to the things that they will eat… spaghetti bol[ognese], four times a week. (Women, 35–45) You have to cater for different tastes in the household. (Women, 35–45) There’s nothing more heartbreaking… when you do go to a lot of effort and they won’t even try it. (Women, 35–45)

In this context, catering for teenage boys was raised as a specific issue. Parents of teenage boys reported that they were often primarily driven by a need to provide filling food, and this tended to mean a reliance on carbohydrate-based meals, such as rice or pasta. Some amongst the group of men also talked about the main motivator for food choices being about filling themselves up. They would choose foods that provided bulk so that they could feel full. Certainly amongst the men, and in the context of parents talking about their sons, there was a substantial focus on the need for food to be bulky and filling.

I usually choose my food for size, value for money and something that the boys will eat. Bigger is better. (Men, 35–50) Size, you know, steak, parma, my son will eat, you know, most things, money comes into it again, but bigger is better. (Men, 35–50) I’d rather go big than fancy. (Men, 35–50) For me I’ve always just, I eat until I’m completely full, if you are breathing and food isn’t coming into your mouth, because you’ve so full, then you are not full enough, so keep eating, that’s the kind of, my whole family is the same, none of them are overweight or fat. (Men, 35–50) Every second meal is probably pasta or rice [to fill up the kids]. (Women, 35–45)

Throughout these discussions, it was apparent that some of the women who were involved in preparing family meals tended to ignore their own preferences for the sake of catering for partners and children. They believed that it was not worth preparing a different meal for themselves, and so tended to eat whatever they were preparing for others. Several of the women commented that this meant that they did not eat as healthily as they would like to. When prompted, those in the group of mothers commented that they only really enjoyed some of their meals.

Whatever’s in the fridge or cupboard. If there’s salad I’ll have salad, but if we’ve got leftovers I’ll have that… whatever I can grab. (Women, 35–45) [I enjoy] half to three-quarters [of my meals] and the rest are a bit of a chore. (Women, 35–45) We’re just eating because you got to eat to keep going, but tea time is more of an enjoyable meal. And the snacks in between are usually enjoyable. (Women, 35–45) Well, it made me realise that probably maybe it’s more complicated in bringing up children, that I really ignored my own health for quite a long time. (Women, 35–45)

Interestingly, however, some of these same participants commented that when they did have the opportunity to choose meals that were not dependent on the preferences of others, such as when they were at home on their own during the day, they commonly chose foods that were convenient, and reported that they could not be bothered preparing for themselves. They reported that they would find something that they considered simple and easy to make (e.g., leftovers; toast; cheese and biscuits).

Yeah, there are days like that, I just grab one of those [Up & Go drinks]. Um, because I’m part-time sometimes I’ll be home at lunch time and I’ll say to myself in the morning, “Oh, I’ll eat when I go home. I’ll have a good meal when I go home", but what happens is that I stay on at school longer and I’ll come home at 2:00, 2:30/3:00 and then it’s like, “I’ll wait till the kids are home, we’ll just have afternoon…or I’ll come home carb crave, you know, deprived and just…just grab some, like Cruskets or Saladas or some rubbish, a bit of cheese". (Women, 35–45) I think if I didn’t have to cook for the kids I would eat differently but, then having said that, as we’ve been talking I thought you know I don’t make the effort at lunch time, I just go by routine, whatever, and…if I’m not enjoying it I’ll just eat it because it’s there rather than spend the time to make something I really like, like vegetables or a salad. A lot of basic things. (Women, 35–45)

Those who lived with children talked about the age of their children affecting both the kind of food they ate and when they ate. In particular, those with younger children tended to report that they tried to arrange meals around reasonably set timelines. They reasoned that this structure fit in best with other patterns of their children’s day-to-day activities, especially school, sports, and sleep. It was apparent that such set structures were less important for those with older children or without children.

Price and budgets

The cost of food was commonly mentioned as a determinant of food choices. This was especially the case for those with teenage boys, given the need to provide large amounts of food. Several of the family participants talked about buying food in bulk when it was cheap and commented that this would then govern their food choices for a period of time.

I buy cereal in boxes of twenty or thirty, so if Nutrigrain is on Special for $4 a box, I buy twenty or thirty… Vita Brits I went and brought, it was $2 a box or something for Vita Brits the other day, and $2 a box for Weet Bix somewhere else, so I actually had a whole car filled with two trolleys full of Vita Brits, Weet Bix, and I haven’t brought Nutrigrain in a while, we are down to about our last three boxes, we had about forty boxes in there the other day. (Men, 35–50) We’re looking at economy; we’ve all got children. You know, we’ve got to budget. (Women, 35–45)

Work and workplaces

Outside of the home, some noted that their lunch time food choices when they were at work depended on where they were, what was available, and who else they were eating with or purchasing for. Some commented that they were not always able to take lunch with them to work, and that this, combined with where they were working, determined what they could eat at lunch time. Some commented that they worked in areas with only limited choice and some reported that they would be on the road for work and what they ate depended on which town they were visiting at lunch time. In both of these situations, participants noted that it was especially difficult to make food choices that they believed were healthy, simply because the healthy options were not readily available. Some noted that at their workplaces, a group of workers would take it in turns to decide where they would go for lunch, and therefore the individual’s choice was dependent on what that one place had available that day.

Participants also commented that their workplace, type of work, and working hours determined when they could eat. Some experienced set working hours and had little flexibility to decide when they ate, with references being made to shift work, school hours, or retail businesses with defined customer service hours. Working hours were also regarded as one of the factors that determined whether breakfast was eaten and what was eaten at the time. Some participants talked about not feeling like eating as soon as they got up, preferring to wait until sometime later to have breakfast. However, some of these people also noted that the nature of their work meant that they were unable to eat at the time that they would prefer (e.g., teachers), and therefore that they would have to have something first thing in the morning so they could last through until lunch time.

Social factors

Location of eating.

Participants consistently pointed out that eating food that they had not prepared affected their choice of foods, from the perspective of both availability and desire. For example, when eating out, participants reported that they tended to have something they wouldn’t eat at home. They were more likely to have foods they considered to be treats. Some also commented that they would choose foods at these times that were restricted at home because others in the household did not like them. A specific example was food that was provided for free, which was typically at some kind of function. Free food meant different motivations for choice. Partly this was related to not being able to be as fussy as they would be if they were providing their own food or making their own choices. Partly it was related to going for the unusual, commonly more decadent, choice. In both of the above situations (eating out and free food), some participants talked about the idea of feeling like they had to eat all that they were served so as to not waste the opportunity or their money.

Most of the time if I’ve overeaten is when we go to the buffets, where it’s all you can eat sort of thing… so I try to avoid those sort of places, because I will overeat and I feel guilty and then I’ll go out for a walk before I go to bed and then I’ll punish myself the next day. (Men, 35–50)

Other factors related to location were discussed previously under the heading, ‘Work and workplaces’.

Social and physical activities

Participants talked about a range of activities that affected both choice and timing of food. A common factor was that of physical activity, and especially in the context of organised team sports. It was noted that these activities, especially if they were during the week, often overlapped with normal eating times, and therefore that meals would need to be rearranged around the activity. With respect to sports, participants also reported that they needed to consider the impact of their meal on their ability to take part in the sport, noting that they might not have sufficient energy to play a sport if they had not eaten, but that they could not eat too soon before being active. This commonly meant that meals on these evenings were either very early or very late, neither of which was regarded as ideal, but something that participants had no control over. It was also noted that physical activity could affect the type of food chosen, specifically that they would need to eat either to provide or replenish energy.

Some of those who were parents also noted that the sports activities of their children affected their own diet, in terms of both timing of meals and choice of food. Because families were reluctant to prepare more than one meal, the whole family had to fit around everyone else’s activities.

Well we have our set days where, like Wednesday nights we have to have Mackie cheese [macaroni cheese] and nuggets, because that’s what the boys want after their swimming lesson, and sometimes I have to go to the supermarket because I haven’t got any left in the fridge, so… pasta is a bit of a staple. (Men, 35–50) Wednesday is late because I’ve got touch football, so I don’t eat dinner before going to play, I don’t want to go on a full stomach, so lunch is always bigger on a Wednesday than any other day… I hate it because one of the touch footie games isn’t till seven thirty, I hate it, because normally eating at six, there is no way I can have tea beforehand, because I’m just going to run around and get sick, so you don’t get home till… eight thirty, quarter to nine, nine if they are running late, and… yeah, pretty much [McDonald’s] or homemade pizza… because you know they only take about eight minutes in the oven.(Women, 18–24) Well whether the boys are going to be home or we know they are going to be home or one of the daughters is playing sport or I’m playing sport, it varies. (Men, 35–50)

Participants talked about a range of other social activities, such as various groups and clubs, which affected when and what they ate. While these activities might not have had the same physiological impact on food preferences and choices as sports activities, they did similarly affect when meals were eaten, which in turn affected what was eaten. For example, some mentioned after work activities, which meant that they would not get a chance to eat until late, and by then the quickest and most convenient thing to do was to buy take-away food on the way home or eat pre-prepared frozen meals when they got home.

My partner plays pool on a Monday and Wednesday night, so we always have tea a lot earlier then and cook the simple things that don’t take as long, so he can have dinner before he goes rather than buying pub meals which cost more money.(Women, 18–24)

Planning and preparation

Throughout the research, it was apparent that different people had different approaches to planning and preparing meals. The approaches tended to depend on factors such as where they lived, how they shopped, and who and how many people they were shopping for. For example, some mentioned that they lived out of town and therefore that they tended to shop less frequently but buy more at a time. Some of those who reported having large families also mentioned that they would shop in bulk. Several of these participants talked about their food shopping being driven by pre-planned meals.

Yeah and as you drift through the town you stop at the supermarket and pick up the required… it’s a half hour drive in and out, so it creates that sense of planning. (Men, 35–50) For our family… my wife actually sits down each fortnight, because we get paid fortnightly, she works full time, I’m studying full time, and working part time, five kids, the budget is not extensive, so she actually sits down each fortnight and works out what we are going to eat for the fortnight, and then goes and gets all the set ingredients for those meals, and so there’s nothing above and beyond that, now and then there might be a treat thrown in or whatever, all the stuff for the school lunches and that sort of thing. So it’s basically dependent, the amount we eat is dependent on that. She works out ok we need so much to make a meal for seven people. (Men, 35–50)

Participants’ approach to planning was also driven by factors such as their work schedules. They reported that these factors meant that they had different amounts of time available on different days of the week, and therefore that the planning and food preparation process varied according to what was possible on each day.

Oh, well, my aspiration is that I eat more healthily and more natural foods but that’s quite often sabotaged by my planning. My husband probably does want to do that as well but, um, I find it’s often, “Oh, my goodness, I’ve got half an hour to make something and there’s nothing for them, there’s nothing in the fridge, so what are we going to have. So, occasionally it’s fish and chips instead or, um, yeah, just quickly putting something together which isn’t really what I’d want to do but if I’ve done more planning in advance then…(Women, 35–45)

It was also apparent that some participants simply preferred to have a set structure to their diet, and this meant set meals and set shopping patterns.

I guess going back to the getting groceries, I tend to map my weeks out from the Sunday, buy everything for the weekend and that’s it, but I stick to the same recipe every day, so usually lunch is a wrap with ham and a certain amount of grams of tomato and cucumber… it’s just easier to stick to.(Women, 18–24) I pretty much eat at the same time every day…. 9.30 breakfast, twelve lunch, six o’clock dinner. (Women, 18–24)

By contrast, others tended to be a bit more ad hoc in terms of planning, and therefore shopping. These participants reported that they would decide what to eat each day and might quickly visit the supermarket on the way home. It was apparent during these discussions that this approach was more likely in situations in which men were more involved in day-to-day food choices.

And depending on the timing of the day, what’s happened during the day and that sort of thing, what we feel like, necessarily on the day, will be dependent on… well [my wife] either sorts it out in the morning, or puts the slow cooker on or something like that… [depending on] you know who’s going where, that day, because she’s working, at the moment, she’s teaching up at the uni so she’s there till five o’clock most nights of the week… I’ve got subjects or classes, until four or five, I’ve got one on a Monday that finishes at seven, in the evening. (Men, 35–50)

Finally, participants varied in their attitudes regarding whether they liked to have food in the freezer that could be ready to thaw and prepare, or whether they preferred to buy and eat fresh food.

Meal patterns

Timing of meals.

As noted above, participants across these groups reported that their patterns of eating, in particular the time at which they ate, were commonly governed by factors that they felt were external and therefore that they had no control over. Some mentioned that they would eat in the morning because they needed something to get through the start of the day. Even if they did not feel hungry at this time, they were aware that they would feel hungry before there was another chance to eat. From this perspective, for some people and some meals, food was about fuel. They would stock up to prevent themselves running low later on, even if they did not really feel like eating at the time. As noted above, participants in each of the groups talked about the routines and structures of their day-to-day existence determining when they could eat, and that this affected what they would eat. To some extent, they did not feel that this was an ideal approach but felt that they had limited capacity to do otherwise. Hence, in some situations, timing of eating was based on the desire to prevent later hunger, rather than as a response to current hunger.

I think, I mostly eat because, well I’m hungry and you have to, rather than oh my god that’s fantastic, and I’d love to cook it and eat it and enjoy it, I think it’s just more of a…. (Men, 35–50) You’ve got to eat, it’s fuel. (Men, 35–50) Yeah, like breakfast I wouldn’t normally eat, well I don’t enjoy breakfast, but I eat because I know, come nine o’clock, ten o’clock I’m going to be hungry I’m going to be lethargic, so I’ll force Wheeties in or some toast or… I do enjoy food but I don’t deliberately go out because I enjoy the taste or the texture or whatever, it’s more, well you have to eat. (Men, 35–50) If I know I’m travelling and I have to skip lunch or something, I’ll probably have a bigger, breakfast than normal, but if I know I’m going to have access to lunch, then no problem, I’ll just have something to keep me, just to get me there, rather than, cook up the big pancakes and the bacon and eggs, you’ve got to taste nice, I’ll be just a couple of bits of toast just to keep the hunger away. (Men, 35–50)

Standard and variable meals

Participants were prompted to talk about which meals were standard and which were more variable. For most participants, breakfast, lunch, and dinner were each affected by different factors, as were weekday and weekend meals.

Weekday vs. Weekend

Across the groups, weekdays tended to involve more structure, and therefore the weekday meals also tended to involve more structure. This appeared to be most obviously true for those with younger (primary school age) children but was also the case for those with older children and those who did not have or live with children. In other words, the typical weekday involved a degree of externally imposed structure (e.g., working hours: travel times: sporting activities), and for those who lived with others, this was further impacted by the need to coordinate times. For some, food choices tended to be group choices rather than individual choices, especially during the week. By contrast, weekends tended to involve more flexibility of schedules, and as a consequence, more time could be spent in food preparation and decisions about meals were less time and convenience based.

I cook…during the week is when I have…we have set meals and then weekends when I don’t cook… [during the week] we have a meal together every night…at the moment they’re all young so no-one’s out doing things. Yeah, I’m cooking a meal every night, but on the weekend it’s more relaxed, it’s like, “get your own". (Women, 35–45)

Breakfast, lunch, and dinner

While there were some exceptions across these groups, breakfast tended to be a more standard and regular meal. To a large degree, this was because time was a major issue, as breakfast needed to be consumed at a set time and in a brief period of time, typically while the family was getting ready for the day’s activities. Interestingly, some participants suggested that they did not experience the same need for variety when it came to breakfast as they did with other meals, commenting that they were happy to have the same thing day after day. As noted above, weekend breakfasts were commonly quite different from weekday breakfasts, being more about choice, enjoyment, and variety than time and convenience. Weekend breakfasts also tended to be more of a family event than simply eating something before the day’s activities.

However, some participants in each of the groups reported that they did not always eat breakfast, typically feeling that it was too early to eat. Amongst this group, some reported having breakfast some days and not others. These people reported they would wake up and decide whether they felt hungry, and if so, what they felt like eating.

It was also common for some to talk about breakfast being a time when they were more in touch with what they felt like eating, or whether they felt like eating at all, although the breakfast choices tended to be quite narrow (e.g., toast: cereal: fruit). Similarly, some reported that they had two or more standard breakfasts, and that they would choose on the day what they “feel like".

I just wake up and whatever I feel like… like if I wake up hungry, then I’ll go and have some, if I feel like cereal, then I’ll have cereal… and if I do sport in the morning, then I usually have toast… I just feel like toast after a run. (Women, 18–24) It can range from cereal or toast in the morning, my wife makes her own sourdough, so we have that in the morning, which is really good… depends on the mood, because what happens, if the kids wake up, it’s cereal, and I’ll do three bowls at the same time, one, two, three… If everyone is still sleeping, I’ll make my toast and wrap it up and eat it on the way to work so… it just depends on how you feel. (Men, 35–50)

As discussed earlier, lunches tended to vary according to where people were and what they were doing. Convenience was also a key driver for lunch time choices. For those not working during the day, lunches were commonly leftovers from the night before or simple snacks. The mothers talked about not really putting aside time or food for lunch, and often skipping it or simply not getting around to it. If they were not at home, lunch would depend on where they were and what they were doing. For those who were working, there was also the issue of choice being affected by the group, as was previously documented.

Dinner was generally regarded as the most important meal of the day and was afforded more effort and planning. All of the factors discussed previously as influencing food choices tended to be applied to dinners. Most obviously, weekday dinners tended to follow somewhat more of a routine, while there was greater variation and potentially a broader choice on the weekends.

Perceptions of own eating

Participants were asked to comment on how they felt about their diets and their approach to eating. The typical response was to say that it was mostly okay but could be improved. There was a tendency for participants to comment that they ate too much of some foods that they perceived as not good foods, and/or not enough of other foods that they perceived as good foods. Interestingly though, participants commonly responded to these questions with a range of justifications for the shortcomings that they perceived in their diets. For example, some would claim that it was okay that they ate so much high fat foods because they did a lot of exercise; others would report that it was okay because they had a “good metabolism".

Yeah I’m pretty happy with mine [diet], I think I drink too much Coke, I’m really addicted to Coke, but apart from that I’m pretty happy with it. I really love my vegetables, so we eat a lot of vegies… maybe I do justify it, but I really do think that I eat alright. (Women, 18–24) I’m so lucky I’ve got a really good metabolism, and also people will be like, I’ve got a block of chocolate down to fifteen minutes, because if I’ve got a five-hour shift, I only get a few minutes, and they are like but that’s so bad for you, yeah but it’s like calcium… and then if I’m at uni and I want to be healthy, I’ll have like steamed dim sims instead of fried dim sims… so I can justify it all in my head, and I know that it’s not right.(Women, 18–24)

Amongst the younger women in particular, some felt that as long as they were happy with their weight, their diet was all right.

Yeah that’s right, I’ll go for a run, and I do exercise, I don’t put on weight, I don’t, but I do exercise, but I think I do justify my bad eating because I don’t put on weight. (Women, 18–24)

Participants were prompted to discuss whether they ever ate too much, and if so, in what circumstances. Generally, participants felt that they were aware when they were eating too much, but as with comments about their diets in general, they tended to have reasons for doing so that made it acceptable in the circumstances. Commonly, participants reported that when they went out for a meal they would clean their plates even if they were full. They reported that serving sizes tended to be large and that they did not want to leave food if they had paid for it. A specific example of this was the ‘All you can eat’ deals. In the context of these discussions, there was some awareness of the idea of stopping before you feel full, but it was apparent that the actual practice of this idea was less than the knowledge. In essence, participants experienced far more benefits to eating till they were full than disadvantages.

A [chicken parmigiana] and a steak and it’s huge, I’ll, because it’s there, I’ll just keep going until it’s finished… half way through I’ve probably had enough, I’ll be thinking I’m not hungry anymore, but I’ll just keep going. (Men, 35–50). And because you’ve paid for it. (Men, 35–50).

Overall, these findings support Sobal and Bisogni’s [ 31 ] contention that food choice is multifaceted, situational, dynamic, and complexx. However, some components of their model received more affirmation than others. A key overarching theme from the findings was the strong and pervasive impact of external forces, or at least the perception of these forces, on what and when food is eaten. Although taste and preferences for particular foods, as well as health considerations, were mentioned, often as competing considerations [ 57 ], most of the discussion was about the impact of outside forces on food choice. These included family, work, and social structures, and the expectations (or perceived expectations) of family members, colleagues, friends, and others. According to Chen and Antonelli’s [ 32 ] food choice framework, these largely fall into the category, Food-external factors and, in particular, the Social environment sub-category.

The knowledge that one should be practicing healthy eating, which falls under the Framework’s Cognitive factor category, while seen as an aspiration by most participants, was often viewed as unrealistic, trumped by the need and/or desire for convenience, which might be considered a combination of Food-external factor: Social environment and Personal-state factor: Psychological components, in the Framework. Mete et al. [ 58 ], in a qualitative study with adults aged 25–58, also concluded that healthy food choices were important but not a daily priority, and that healthy eating information was known but viewed as difficult to apply to everyday life. Other research has noted the importance of convenience in food choice [ 59 – 60 ]. Jabs et al. [ 61 ], for example, in a study with low-wage employed mothers, found that most expressed feelings of time scarcity and that, while they prioritised feeding their children, they also wanted to complete meals quickly to move on to other tasks. Bava et al. [ 62 ] found that, while the working women in their study said they would ideally choose healthier food, the reality of their lives demanded convenience in food provision to minimise time and cognitive effort.

Other categories and sub-categories of Chen and Antonelli’s [ 32 ] framework, while less discussed by participants, were mentioned. Dearth of food choices when travelling for work, for example, might be categorised under Food-external factor: Physical environment. Personal-state factor: Habits and experiences was demonstrated by discussions around eating the same breakfast every day [ 63 ]. Personal-state factor: Physiological needs came up in discussions around needing to eat even if one didn’t feel like it in order to not go hungry later in the day, or with men's and boys' needs to eat bulky food to fill up. Desires or cravings for less healthy foods (Food-internal factor) were also perceived as working against the ideal of healthy eating.

Although our study did not seek to explore gender or life stage differences in food choice, several tendencies were observed, which future research may want to further explore. In particular, the women with children discussed food choice largely in terms of what others in the family– i.e., their partner and children– liked and which fit in with their schedules. The men, on the other hand, all of whom had children, more often spoke of eating to fill themselves up, or ‘food as fuel.’ Newcome et al. [ 64 ], in a study with partnered men, concluded that men in families displayed unease at expressing enjoyment in food (‘Men downplayed their hedonic consumption’), and instead spoke about food as being largely functional as fuel for their bodies. If these gender and life stage differences prove to be robust, this may suggest quite different public health messaging targeted to women with children, men with children, and those without partners or children. Much of the literature on food choice focuses on women, who continue to be more involved with family food decisions than do their male partners [ 65 ], and thus more is known about women’s food choices.

The findings from this study suggest that public health efforts aimed at educating and encouraging individuals to eat more healthfully are, on their own, insufficient to significantly improve healthy eating at a population level. These public health efforts need to be delivered in conjunction with legislation that removes structural barriers to promote healthy eating.

The vast majority of our participants knew they should be eating more healthfully but felt largely unable to do so. Instead, some of these identified structural barriers must be addressed. In particular, improvements to the food environment are needed, particularly in rural areas where distances are greater [ 66 ]. Greater provision of quickly preparable, accessible, and reasonably priced food, for example, would assist with some of the time barriers. More workplaces could consider providing free and accessible fruit or other healthy snacks for their employees [ 67 ]. Children’s sporting facilities could ensure that healthy foods are available [ 68 ].

As with any study, this one has several limitations. First, the focus groups were conducted in 2010; since then, various changes have occurred in the food environment that are potentially relevant to food choice and the findings from this study. These include the rapid proliferation of online food delivery services. There is evidence, for example, that such services increase the geographic access to foods prepared away from home and that these foods tend not to meet healthy eating recommendations [ 69 ]. There has also been a significant increase in the production and promotion of convenience and ultra-processed foods over this time [ 70 ]. In addition, the marketing of fast food, beverage, and snack brands has expanded via social media [ 71 ], with evidence that digital food marketing and social media can influence food choices, preferences, and consumption [ 72 ]. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted within this context. Future studies are needed to determine the extent to which the various barriers and enablers to healthy eating identified in this study continue to hold.

Second, the findings of this study are based on only three groups of people with a total of 23 participants, all of whom live in or near a rural region in Victoria, Australia. However, one would assume that many of the discussions around personal, family, and workplace factors would translate beyond this specific group of people, and particularly to other people living in Western countries in non-metropolitan areas. A third limitation of this study is that neither actual dietary intake data nor measures of nutritional knowledge was collected from participants, which would have allowed comparison of what participants discussed against more objective data. However, the focus of this study was on understanding how people think about their eating behaviours and perceptions of motivations and barriers to eating more healthily, rather than on whether their self-reports are factually correct. Moreover, we know that food diary data is often inaccurate [ 73 – 74 ]. Fourth, a single researcher conducted the focus groups and analysed the data. However, with thematic analysis, coding quality is not dependent on multiple coders [ 75 ]. The results were discussed with the other co-authors and the first author also read the transcripts. All three authors agreed with the findings.

Despite a plethora of information regarding how people should eat, surprisingly little research explores how and why people eat the way they do– particularly in a general population. Based on findings from focus groups with a range of participants from a rural region of Victoria, Australia, we found that, although decisions regarding when, what, and how much to eat are determined in part by taste preferences and health considerations, they are heavily influenced by a host of other factors. Moreover, many of these factors exist outside the control of the individual, including other household members’ preferences, family activities, and workplace and time constraints, as well as convenience and price. It appears, therefore, that education alone will not solve the problem of unhealthy eating. People want to eat healthier, or at least know they should eat healthier, but it’s all just too hard. It would seem, then, that a key to improving people’s eating behaviours is to make it easy to eat more healthfully, or at least not much harder than eating poorly.

Data availability

De-identified transcripts will be considered by the corresponding author upon request.Due to the nature of the data (i.e.,dSAZX a small number of focus group participants from a single geographic area), it is very difficult to anonymize the data. In addition, the participants did not provide explicit consent for the transcripts to be shared publicly.

World Health Organization. Healthy diet. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean; 2019.

Krebs-Smith SM, Pannucci TE, Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Lerman JL, Tooze JA, Wilson MM, Reedy J. Update of the healthy eating index: HEI-2015. J Acad Nutr Dietetics. 2018;118(9):1591–602.

Article   Google Scholar  

Visseren FL, Mach F, Smulders YM, Carballo D, Koskinas KC, Bäck M, Benetos A, Biffi A, Boavida JM, Capodanno D, Cosyns B. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: developed by the Task Force for cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice with representatives of the European Society of Cardiology and 12 medical societies with the special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022;29(1):5–115.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tiedje K, Wieland ML, Meiers SJ, Mohamed AA, Formea CM, Ridgeway JL, Asiedu GB, Boyum G, Weis JA, Nigon JA, Patten CA. A focus group study of healthy eating knowledge, practices, and barriers among adult and adolescent immigrants and refugees in the United States. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2014;11(1):1–6.

Manickavasagan A, Al-Mahdouri AA, Al-Mufargi AM, Al-Souti A, Al-Mezeini AS, Essa MM. Healthy eating knowledge among college students in Muscat: a self reported survey. Pakistan J Nutr. 2014;13(7):397–403.

Carrillo E, Varela P, Fiszman S. Influence of nutritional knowledge on the use and interpretation of Spanish nutritional food labels. J Food Sci. 2012;77(1):H1–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ross A, Bevans M, Brooks AT, Gibbons S, Wallen GR. Nurses and health-promoting behaviors: knowledge may not translate into self-care. AORN J. 2017;105(3):267–75.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ronto R, Ball L, Pendergast D, Harris N. Adolescents’ perspectives on food literacy and its impact on their dietary behaviours. Appetite. 2016;107:549–57.

Glanz K, Bishop DB. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:399–418.

Carins JE, Rundle-Thiele SR. Supporting healthy eating behavior through social marketing. Nutrition Science, Marketing Nutrition, Health claims, and Public Policy. Academic; 2023. pp. 231–41.

Harris JA, Carins J, Rundle-Thiele S. Can Social Cognitive Theory Influence Breakfast frequency in an institutional context: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11270.

Andreasen AR. Marketing social change: changing behavior to promote health, social development, and the environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1995.

Google Scholar  

McKenzie-Mohr D, Schultz PW. Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social Mark Q. 2014;20(1):35–46.

Bisogni CA, Connors M, Devine CM, Sobal J. Who we are and how we eat: a qualitative study of identities in food choice. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002;34(3):128–39.

Monteleone E, Spinelli S, Dinnella C, Endrizzi I, Laureati M, Pagliarini E, Sinesio F, Gasperi F, Torri L, Aprea E, Bailetti LI. Exploring influences on food choice in a large population sample: the Italian taste project. Food Qual Prefer. 2017;59:123–40.

Ronto R, Saberi G, Carins J, Papier K, Fox E. Exploring young australians’ understanding of sustainable and healthy diets: a qualitative study. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25(10):2957–69.

Rose N, Reeve B, Charlton K. Barriers and enablers for healthy food systems and environments: the role of local governments. Curr Nutr Rep. 2022;11(1):82–93.

Rosewarne E, Chislett WK, McKenzie B, Mhurchu CN, Boelsen-Robinson T, Blake M, Webster J. Understanding enablers and barriers to the implementation of Nutrition standards in publicly funded institutions in Victoria. Nutrients. 2022;14(13):2628.

Godrich S, Kent K, Murray S, Auckland S, Lo J, Blekkenhorst L, Devine A. Australian consumer perceptions of regionally grown fruits and vegetables: Importance, enablers, and barriers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(1):63.

Herforth A, Arimond M, Álvarez-Sánchez C, Coates J, Christianson K, Muehlhoff E. A global review of food-based dietary guidelines. Adv Nutr. 2019;10(4):590–605.

Rong S, Liao Y, Zhou J, Yang W, Yang Y. Comparison of dietary guidelines among 96 countries worldwide. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021;109:219–29.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Fernandez ML, Raheem D, Ramos F, Carrascosa C, Saraiva A, Raposo A. Highlights of current dietary guidelines in five continents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6):2814.

de Ridder D, Kroese F, Evers C, Adriaanse M, Gillebaart M. Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions. Psychol Health. 2017;32(8):907–41.

Chambers S, Lobb A, Butler LT, Traill WB. The influence of age and gender on food choice: a focus group exploration. Int J Consumer Stud. 2008;32(4):356–65.

Niven P, Morley B, Gascoyne C, Dixon H, McAleese A, Martin J, Wakefield M. Differences in healthiness perceptions of food and dietary patterns among the general public and nutrition experts: a cross-sectional online survey. Health Promotion J Australia. 2022;33(2):361–72.

Dickson-Spillmann M, Siegrist M. Consumers’ knowledge of healthy diets and its correlation with dietary behaviour. J Hum Nutr Dietetics. 2011;24(1):54–60.

Spronk I, Kullen C, Burdon C, O’Connor H. Relationship between nutrition knowledge and dietary intake. Br J Nutr. 2014;111(10):1713–26.

Guthrie J, Mancino L, Lin CT. Nudging consumers toward better food choices: Policy approaches to changing food consumption behaviors. Psychol Mark. 2015;32(5):501–11.

McDonald A, Braun V. Right, yet impossible? Constructions of healthy eating. SSM-Qualitative Res Health. 2022;2:100100.

Colatruglio S, Slater J. (2014). Food literacy: bridging the gap between food, nutrition and well-being. Sustainable well-being: Concepts, issues, and educational practices, 37–55.

Sobal J, Bisogni CA. Constructing food choice decisions. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38(suppl1):s37–46.

Chen PJ, Antonelli M. Conceptual models of food choice: influential factors related to foods, individual differences, and society. Foods. 2020;9(12):1898.

Brogan E, Rossiter C, Duffield C, Denney-Wilson E. Healthy eating and physical activity among new graduate nurses: a qualitative study of barriers and enablers during their first year of clinical practice. Collegian. 2021;28(5):489–97.

Kebbe M, Damanhoury S, Browne N, Dyson MP, McHugh TL, Ball GD. Barriers to and enablers of healthy lifestyle behaviours in adolescents with obesity: a scoping review and stakeholder consultation. Obes Rev. 2017;18(12):1439–53.

Kebbe M, Perez A, Buchholz A, McHugh TL, Scott SD, Richard C, Mohipp C, Dyson MP, Ball GD. Barriers and enablers for adopting lifestyle behavior changes in adolescents with obesity: a multi-centre, qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0209219.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nor NM, Shukri NM, Yassin NQ, Sidek S, Azahari N. Barriers and enablers to make lifestyle changes among type 2 diabetes patients: a review. Sains Malaysiana. 2019;48(7):1491–502.

Nicholls R, Perry L, Duffield C, Gallagher R, Pierce H. Barriers and facilitators to healthy eating for nurses in the workplace: an integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(5):1051–65.

Scannell N, Villani A, Mantzioris E, Swanepoel L. Understanding the self-perceived barriers and enablers toward adopting a Mediterranean diet in Australia: an application of the theory of planned behaviour framework. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9321.

Mayr HL, Kelly JT, Macdonald GA, Russell AW, Hickman IJ. Clinician perspectives of barriers and enablers to implementing the Mediterranean dietary pattern in routine care for coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes: a qualitative interview study. J Acad Nutr Dietetics. 2022;122(7):1263–82.

Munt AE, Partridge SR, Allman-Farinelli M. The barriers and enablers of healthy eating among young adults: a missing piece of the obesity puzzle: a scoping review. Obes Rev. 2017;18(1):1–7.

Amore L, Buchthal OV, Banna JC. Identifying perceived barriers and enablers of healthy eating in college students in Hawai’i: a qualitative study using focus groups. BMC Nutr. 2019;5(1):1–1.

Sogari G, Velez-Argumedo C, Gómez MI, Mora C. College students and eating habits: a study using an ecological model for healthy behavior. Nutrients. 2018;10(12):1823.

Herman CP, Polivy J, Pliner P, Vartanian LR. Social influences on eating. Volume 5. Cham: Springer; 2019 Sep.

Higgs S. Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite. 2015;86:38–44.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Rural and Remote Health. Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/rural-remote-australians/rural-and-remote-health (accessed on 7 March 2024).

Alston L, Jacobs J, Allender S, Nichols M. A comparison of the modelled impacts on CVD mortality if attainment of public health recommendations was achieved in metropolitan and rural Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(2):339–47.

Moayyed H, Kelly B, Feng X, Flood V. Is living near healthier food stores associated with better food intake in regional Australia? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(8):884.

Whelan J, Millar L, Bell C, Russell C, Grainger F, Allender S, Love P. You can’t find healthy food in the bush: poor accessibility, availability and adequacy of food in rural Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2316.

National Rural Health Alliance. Poverty in rural and remote Australia. Available onlilne: https://www.ruralhealth.org.au/sites/default/files/publications/nrha-factsheet-povertynov2017.pdf (accessed 25 January 2024).

Van Dyke N, Murphy M, Drinkwater EJ. What do people think of intuitive eating? A qualitative exploration with rural australians. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(8):e0278979.

Van Dyke N, Drinkwater EJ. Intuitive eating is positively associated with indicators of physical and mental health among rural Australian adults. Aust J Rural Health. 2022;30(4):468–77.

Van Dyke N, Drinkwater EJ. Review article relationships between intuitive eating and health indicators: literature review. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(8):1757–66.

Van Dyke N, Drinkwater EJ, Rachele JN. Improving the accuracy of self-reported height and weight in surveys: an experimental study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22(1):1–14.

Devine CM, Olson CM. Women’s dietary prevention motives: life stage influences. J Nutr Educ. 1991;23(6):269–74.

Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Evaluation. 2006;27(2):237–46.

Bingham AJ, Witkowsky P. Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data: After the interview. 2021 Apr 8:133– 46. SAGE Publications.

Frank-Podlech S, Watson P, Verhoeven AA, Stegmaier S, Preissl H, de Wit S. Competing influences on healthy food choices: mindsetting versus contextual food cues. Appetite. 2021;166:105476.

Mete R, Curlewis J, Shield A, Murray K, Bacon R, Kellett J. Reframing healthy food choices: a content analysis of Australian healthy eating blogs. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–9.

Phan UT, Chambers IVE. Motivations for choosing various food groups based on individual foods. Appetite. 2016;105:204–11.

Aggarwal A, Rehm CD, Monsivais P, Drewnowski A. Importance of taste, nutrition, cost and convenience in relation to diet quality: evidence of nutrition resilience among US adults using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2010. Prev Med. 2016;90:184–92.

Jabs J, Devine CM, Bisogni CA, Farrell TJ, Jastran M, Wethington E. Trying to find the quickest way: employed mothers’ constructions of time for food. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007;39(1):18–25.

Bava CM, Jaeger SR, Park J. Constraints upon food provisioning practices in ‘busy’women’s lives: Trade-offs which demand convenience. Appetite. 2008;50(2–3):486–98.

Jastran MM, Bisogni CA, Sobal J, Blake C, Devine CM. Eating routines. Embedded, value based, modifiable, and reflective. Appetite. 2009;52(1):127–36.

Newcombe MA, McCarthy MB, Cronin JM, McCarthy SN. Eat like a man. A social constructionist analysis of the role of food in men’s lives. Appetite. 2012;59(2):391–8.

Daminger A. The cognitive dimension of household labor. Am Sociol Rev. 2019;84(4):609–33.

Lenardson JD, Hansen AY, Hartley D. Rural and remote food environments and obesity. Curr Obes Rep. 2015;4:46–53.

Pescud M, Waterworth P, Shilton T, Teal R, Slevin T, Ledger M, Rosenberg M. A healthier workplace? Implementation of fruit boxes in the workplace. Health Educ J. 2016;75(7):843–54.

Kelly B, King L, Bauman AE, Baur LA, Macniven R, Chapman K, Smith BJ. Identifying important and feasible policies and actions for health at community sports clubs: a consensus-generating approach. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(1):61–6.

Brar K, Minaker LM. Geographic reach and nutritional quality of foods available from mobile online food delivery service applications: novel opportunities for retail food environment surveillance. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–11.

Baker P, Machado P, Santos T, Sievert K, Backholer K, Hadjikakou M, Lawrence M. (2020). Ultra-processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes Rev, 21(12), e13126.

Bragg MA, Pageot YK, Amico A, Miller AN, Gasbarre A, Rummo PE, Elbel B. (2020). Fast food, beverage, and snack brands on social media in the United States: an examination of marketing techniques utilized in 2000 brand posts. Pediatr Obes, 15(5), e12606.

Granheim SI, Løvhaug AL, Terragni L, Torheim LE, Thurston M. (2022). Mapping the digital food environment: a systematic scoping review. Obes Rev, 23(1), e13356.

Garden L, Clark H, Whybrow S, Stubbs RJ. Is misreporting of dietary intake by weighed food records or 24-hour recalls food specific? Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72(7):1026–34.

Saravia L, Moliterno P, Skapino E, Moreno LA, Food Diary. Food frequency questionnaire, and 24-Hour Dietary Recall. InBasic protocols in Foods and Nutrition 2022 Jun 8 (pp. 223–47). New York, NY: Springer US.

Braun V, Clarke V. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychol. 2022;9(1):3.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Social Research Centre for conducting the focus groups at cost. We would also like to acknowledge the focus group participants, who generously shared information and insights about themselves and their families.

This study was funded in part by a Research Development Fund from Charles Sturt University. In addition, The Social Research Centre provided an in lieu contribution of four hours per week of author Van Dyke’s time to work on this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mitchell Institute, Victoria University, 300 Queen St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Nina Van Dyke

MM Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Michael Murphy

Centre for Sport Research, School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

Eric J. Drinkwater

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NV conceived the project and wrote the main manuscript text other than the Results section. MM conducted the analysis of data and wrote the Results section. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Van Dyke .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This project received ethics approval from the Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee (2010/144). Each participant provided oral informed consent before participation, as approved by the Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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.

Van Dyke, N., Murphy, M. & Drinkwater, E.J. “We know what we should be eating, but we don’t always do that.” How and why people eat the way they do: a qualitative study with rural australians. BMC Public Health 24 , 1240 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18432-x

Download citation

Received : 14 December 2023

Accepted : 25 March 2024

Published : 06 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18432-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

• Healthy eating
• Health literacy
• Health behaviours
• Qualitative methodology
• Focus groups

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2019
• Volume 42 , pages 139–160, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
• Ugo Corte 3  

595k Accesses

286 Citations

24 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Research

Unsettling definitions of qualitative research, what is “qualitative” in qualitative research why the answer does not matter but the question is important.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, 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. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.

Google Scholar  

Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.

Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.

Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .

Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.

Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.

Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.

Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.

Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.

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

Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.

Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.

James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.

Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.

Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.

Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .

Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.

Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.

Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.

McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.

Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf

Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).

Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.

Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.

Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.

Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.

Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.

Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.

Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.

Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.

Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.

Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Patrik Aspers

Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Download citation

Published : 27 February 2019

Issue Date : 01 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

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 research
• Epistemology
• Philosophy of science
• Phenomenology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research