Six Approaches to Collecting Qualitative Data
One section of one document is the richest thing in the whole supplied teaching source on how qualitative data is gathered. It is reproduced here in full, approach by approach, with the ranking claims it makes without criteria and the four technical terms it uses without defining.
How the source frames the six before it lists them
Four hedges in three sentences, and each of them matters when you cite this material. The treatment is "briefly"; the six are "some of" the more common approaches, not all of them; there is "certainly overlap" between them; and "the distinctions are not always readily evident".
So the list is neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, and the source says so itself. What the section does deliver — and this is why it is worth the length of this page — is a definitional sentence and a set of collection implications for each approach, which is more than the supplied material offers for any other method. For the wider account of what qualitative work is, see What Qualitative Research Is and Qualitative Methods: The Commonly Used Set.
The six approaches, as the source describes them
1. Phenomenology
Phenomenology: Focuses on individual experiences, beliefs, and perceptions.
- "Questions and observations are aimed at drawing out individual experiences and perceptions."
- "In focus groups, group experiences and normative perceptions are typically sought out."
- "In-depth interviews and focus groups are ideal methods for collecting phenomenological data."
Three implications, and they point your instrument at the individual: the design question becomes how to get one person to describe an experience rather than to report a fact about their organisation. Note that the second implication shifts the unit — in a focus group the source expects group experiences and "normative perceptions" instead, which is a different kind of data from the same approach.
2. Ethnography
Ethnography: Oriented toward studying shared meanings and practices (i.e., culture).
- "Questions and observations are generally related to social and cultural processes and shared meanings within a given group of people."
- "Can have a contemporary or historical focus. Traditionally, it is associated with long-term fieldwork, but some aspects are employed in applied settings."
- "Participant observation is well suited to ethnographic inquiry"
This is the only one of the six with a stated time signature — long-term fieldwork by tradition, with the concession that "some aspects" are employed in applied settings. For a researcher working alongside a delivery role that concession is the whole of the permission the source gives, and it does not say which aspects transfer. The recommended technique, participant observation, is never defined in this week.
3. Inductive thematic analysis
Inductive Thematic Analysis: Involves identifying and coding emergent themes within data.
- "Most common analytic approach used in qualitative inquiry."
- "ITA requires generation of free-flowing data."
- "In-depth interviews and focus groups are the most common data collection techniques."
- "Notes from participant observation activities can be analysed using ITA, but interview/focus group data are better."
The collection consequence is stated in the second implication: whatever instrument you build has to generate "free-flowing data", which rules out a fixed-response questionnaire and pushes you towards open questioning. The source neither defines free-flowing data nor says how much of it an analysis needs. The abbreviation ITA is introduced here without being expanded at the point of use, and is then relied on two approaches later.
4. Grounded theory
Grounded Theory: Inductive data collection and analytic methods.
- "Uses systematic and exhaustive comparison of text segments to build thematic structure and theory from a body of text."
- "Common analytic approach in qualitative studies."
- "As above, in-depth interviews and focus groups are the most common data collection techniques associated with GT."
- "Sample sizes for grounded theory are more limited than for ITA because the analytic process is more intensive and time consuming."
The fourth implication is the only statement about sample size anywhere in the week, and it quantifies neither side of its comparison. Treat it as a warning about effort rather than as sizing guidance: the stated reason for the smaller size is that the analytic process is more intensive and time consuming. Participant selection and its limits are set out on Sampling and Selecting Participants.
5. Case study
Case Study: Analysis of one to several cases that are unique with respect to the research topic.
- "Analysis primarily focused on exploring the unique quality."
- "Cases are selected based on a unique (often rarely observed) quality."
- "Questions and observations should focus on, and delve deeply into, the unique feature of interest."
This is the only one of the six that states a selection rule: cases are chosen for a unique, often rarely observed quality. That rule is more demanding than it looks, because a project chosen because you happen to work on it does not satisfy it. "One to several" is the entire statement of how many cases, and unlike the other five, no technique is attached to case study at all.
6. Discourse analysis
Discourse Analysis: Study of "naturally occurring" discourse.
- "It can range from conversation to public events to existing documents."
- "Text and structures within discourse used as objects of analysis."
- "These linguistically focused methods often use existing documents as data."
- "Conversations between individuals that spontaneously emerge within group interviews or focus groups may be studied but are not preferred."
- "Participant observation is conducive to discourse analysis if narratives from public events can be recorded."
This is the one approach of the six whose data may already exist. Existing documents are named twice, which makes it the approach with the lowest access cost — minutes, reports, correspondence and governance papers are discourse that occurs whether or not you study it. The quotation marks around "naturally occurring" are the source's own, and it does not say what they are doing there.
The six side by side
WHAT THE SOURCE ATTACHES TO EACH OF THE SIX APPROACHES
| Approach | What it is oriented to | Techniques the source attaches | Framed as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phenomenology | Individual experiences, beliefs and perceptions | In-depth interviews and focus groups, called "ideal" | Collection |
| Ethnography | Shared meanings and practices, i.e. culture | Participant observation, "well suited" | Collection |
| Inductive thematic analysis | Identifying and coding emergent themes | In-depth interviews and focus groups; participant observation notes second-best | Analysis |
| Grounded theory | Building thematic structure and theory from a body of text | In-depth interviews and focus groups | Analysis |
| Case study | One to several cases unique to the research topic | None named | Collection |
| Discourse analysis | "Naturally occurring" discourse | Existing documents; participant observation where public narratives can be recorded | Analysis |
The "framed as" column reflects the source's own words — inductive thematic analysis is called "the most common analytic approach", grounded theory a "common analytic approach", and discourse analysis uses text "as objects of analysis". The section they all sit in is headed as being about collecting data.
The same subject gives a different list one week earlier
The week before this one, the same teaching source lists qualitative approaches on a key terms slide and gives four: ethnography, phenomenology, field research and grounded theory. This week's notes give six. The two lists share three items and disagree about three more.
TWO LISTS OF QUALITATIVE APPROACHES IN ONE SUBJECT
| Item | In the earlier list of four | In this list of six |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnography | Yes — "study of the culture of a defined group" | Yes — "shared meanings and practices (i.e., culture)" |
| Phenomenology | Yes — individual interpretation of experiences and perceptions of reality | Yes — individual experiences, beliefs and perceptions |
| Grounded theory | Yes — theory grounded in observation, a complex iterative process | Yes — inductive collection and analysis, comparison of text segments |
| Field research | Yes | Absent |
| Inductive thematic analysis | Absent | Yes |
| Case study | Listed as a method, not an approach | Yes, as an approach |
| Discourse analysis | Absent | Yes |
Neither week refers to the other's list, and no reconciliation is offered anywhere in the supplied material.
Terms the six entries use and never define
The section presents itself as a summary written "to help make sense of the complexity". Several of the terms it uses to do that are themselves bare labels.
UNDEFINED TERMS INSIDE THE SIX ENTRIES
| Term | Where it is used | Status in the supplied material |
|---|---|---|
| In-depth interviews | Recommended nine times across the six approaches | Named once elsewhere as the far end of a range; never defined |
| Focus groups | Recommended nine times across the six approaches | One sentence in the week's slides: the interviewer becomes a facilitator in a group |
| Participant observation | Named four times as an implication of another approach | Never defined in this week |
| Normative perceptions | Phenomenology, second implication | Used once, never defined |
| Free-flowing data | Inductive thematic analysis, second implication | Used once, never defined |
| Thematic structure | Grounded theory, first implication | Used once, never defined |
| Text segments | Grounded theory, first implication | Used once, never defined |
| ITA, GT | Both used as established abbreviations | Expanded only in the heading above their first use |
The rankings that carry no criterion
Two of the entries rank data sources against each other without saying what the ranking is for. Under inductive thematic analysis, notes from participant observation "can be analysed using ITA, but interview/focus group data are better". Under discourse analysis, spontaneous conversations inside group interviews "may be studied but are not preferred".
Neither "better" nor "preferred" is explained — better for what, judged on richness, volume, tractability or cost. And the discourse analysis entry unsettles its own ranking two lines later by endorsing participant observation where narratives from public events can be recorded.
Choosing between the six on a live project
The source gives no selection procedure — it describes the six and stops. What follows is built from the entries themselves: each branch uses only a property the source actually states for that approach. It is this page's construction, not a source instruction.
Which approach fits what you are actually trying to find out
What to carry forward
- Six approaches, 22 implications, and an explicit warning from the source that they overlap and are not exhaustive.
- Three of the six are described as analytic approaches inside a section about collection, and the source never separates the two ideas.
- In-depth interviews and focus groups are recommended nine times each and defined nowhere. Take both from a cited text.
- The only sample size statement in the week is a comparison — grounded theory smaller than inductive thematic analysis — with neither side quantified.
- An earlier week of the same subject gives four qualitative approaches, not six, and defines the three shared items differently. Both versions stand.
- Case study is the only one of the six with a stated selection rule, and discourse analysis is the only one whose data may already exist.
Frequently asked questions
Are these six the full set of qualitative approaches?
No, and the source says so. It describes "some of the more common approaches", warns that there is certainly overlap between them and that the distinctions are not always readily evident. Presenting the six as a closed taxonomy claims more than the material supports.
Which approach should I use if I want to interview project managers about a delivery failure?
On the source's own descriptions, phenomenology fits if you want each person's experience of it, and inductive thematic analysis fits if you expect the finding to emerge as patterns across accounts. Both name in-depth interviews and focus groups as their usual techniques. The source gives no selection procedure, so the choice has to be argued from your research question.
Why does the source call grounded theory and thematic analysis data collection approaches?
It lists them in a section headed as being about collecting and using qualitative data, then describes both as analytic approaches in its own text. The contradiction is in the material and is not resolved anywhere in it. Where you rely on either, say which of the two things — gathering or interpreting — you are taking from it.
How many participants does a grounded theory study need?
The material states no number. It says only that sample sizes for grounded theory are more limited than for inductive thematic analysis, because the analytic process is more intensive and time consuming. Neither side of the comparison is quantified anywhere in the week, so any figure you use must come from and be attributed to another source.
What is the difference between an in-depth interview and an ordinary one?
The supplied material never says. It recommends in-depth interviews nine times across the six approaches and defines the term nowhere, mentioning it once elsewhere only as the far end of a range of survey procedures. This is a genuine gap and needs a second source, not a guess.
Can I use documents I already have as my qualitative data?
Discourse analysis is the approach the source attaches to existing material, naming existing documents as data twice and describing the field as ranging from conversation to public events to documents. It is the only one of the six that does not require you to generate new data, which usually makes it the cheapest to access and the most demanding to justify.
References and source attribution
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing.
- Clarke, R. J. 2005, Research methods and methodologies — cited in the supplied source as the basis of its methodologies material.
- The supplied teaching source: section 1 of the week 10 study notes on gathering your data, in both supplied copies, whose "Approaches" subsection is reproduced in full on this page, together with the week 10 slide deck on collecting data.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Which of the six approaches fits my research question, and what would my instrument have to generate?
- Show me the six approaches with only what the source attaches to each — no added definitions.
- How do I justify using participant observation notes for thematic analysis given the source's ranking?
- What do I need from a second source before I can run focus groups or in-depth interviews?
- Compare the six approaches on access cost and time for a part-time research project.