Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative Research
Ten strengths are printed and two limitations. The imbalance is itself a finding, because the source's own governing principle says where the missing eight should have been.
The claim the strengths list rests on
That framing sentence is worth holding on to for a different reason. It claims cross-case comparison as a headline advantage, and the slide deck states that qualitative researchers may be opposed to methods that attempt to summarise across individuals because each individual is unique — one of the eleven statements set out on what qualitative researchers believe. The two documents supplied for the same topic take opposite views of the same operation.
The ten strengths, and which of them the source qualifies
The table reproduces the list in the order printed and records, in the second column, whether the source supplies the matching limitation its own governing principle implies. Two do. Eight do not, and marked cells indicate a silence in the source rather than an absence in the approach.
THE TEN STRENGTHS AS PRINTED, AGAINST THE LIMITATIONS THE SOURCE SUPPLIES
| Strength — the ability to: | Matching limitation in the source |
|---|---|
| Obtain a more realistic view of the lived world that cannot be understood or experienced in numerical data and statistical analysis | None given |
| Provide the researcher with the perspective of the participants through immersion in a culture or situation and direct interaction with them | Yes — embeddedness increases the opportunity for bias to enter the way data is gathered, interpreted and reported |
| Allow the researcher to describe existing phenomena and current situations | None given. The source also never says which of the ten are distinctive to qualitative work; this one is not. |
| Develop flexible ways to perform data collection, subsequent analysis, and interpretation of collected information | None given — but the deck calls the same property ad hoc measure creation |
| Yield results that can be helpful in pioneering new ways of understanding | None given |
| Respond to changes that occur while conducting the study and shift the focus of the research as a result | None given — but the deck's checklist requires the design to be fixed in advance |
| Provide a holistic view of the phenomena under investigation | None given |
| Respond to local situations, conditions, and needs of participants | None given |
| Interact with the research subjects in their own language and on their own terms | None given |
| Create a descriptive capability based on primary and unstructured data | Partly — small sample sizes are said to undermine generalisation from the description produced |
Marked cells record that the supplied source is silent. They are not claims that the strength has no limitation.
Item 6 gives extended fieldwork or observation as an example of a change occurring during a study. No duration is attached to extended anywhere in the material. Item 9 introduces research subjects, one of five different labels the material uses for the people being studied without ever distinguishing them.
The two limitations, in full
The limitations section of the notes is four sentences long. It carries a sub-heading spelled Limitations of qualitative enquiry, against inquiry elsewhere in the same document, and it opens with a principle that promises far more than the section delivers.
The three stages named in limitation two are worth using directly, because they are the most operationally specific thing the section contains: bias enters the way data is gathered, the way it is interpreted, and the way it is reported. That gives you three places to look, which is more than the reflexivity paragraph offers.
Small samples, and the number the source never gives
Limitation one turns entirely on sample size, and this is the one place where a practising researcher most wants a figure. There is not one.
Where the two lists argue with the rest of the material
Four disagreements matter enough to state on the page, because each one will surface as soon as you try to write the strengths and limitations paragraphs together. In every case both positions are in the supplied material and the source acknowledges neither.
FOUR CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE NOTES AND THE SLIDES
| Point at issue | The study notes | The slide deck |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility of design and collection | A strength, twice — develop flexible ways to perform data collection; offer the flexibility to shift the focus of the research | Qualitative measures are created in an ad hoc manner, and the design checklist requires strategies, collection options and analysis approaches to be determined up front |
| Summarising across individuals | A headline advantage — qualitative research can conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis of individuals or groups | Qualitative researchers may be opposed to methods that attempt to summarise across individuals because each individual is unique |
| Generalisation | Small samples undermine opportunities to draw useful generalisations | Qualitative concepts take the form of generalisations, and analysis proceeds by extracting themes or generalisations from evidence |
| Researcher embeddedness | The approach's second principal weakness — being culturally embedded increases the opportunity for bias | ‘Move into organization and experience what it is like to be a part of it’; and for a phenomenon to be observed as natural the researcher needs to become accepted as ‘one of us’ |
Neither document cross-references the other. No mitigation is offered for the embeddedness conflict in either.
Writing the section without overclaiming or apologising
A limitations section that reads as an apology invites the reader to discount the findings; one that reads as a defence invites them to look for what was hidden. The material gives you enough to write neither, provided you keep its hedges and do not borrow limitations it does not contain. For how published work handles the same passage, see stating limitations and contribution.
Drafting the strengths and limitations passage
Claim only the strengths your design actually exercises
Of the ten, most studies genuinely exercise three or four. Claiming a holistic view when you ran six interviews in one directorate is the commonest way this paragraph loses credibility.
State the sample limitation in the source's own terms
Small samples support depth and undermine generalisation and broad recommendation. That is the whole of the source's claim and it is defensible. Do not add a threshold the source does not give.
Name the three stages where bias can enter
Gathering, interpreting, reporting. Say what you did at each. This turns an admission into evidence of control, which is the difference between apologising and reporting.
Declare the flexibility conflict if your design relied on flexibility
If you shifted focus during fieldwork, say so and say why. The material treats the same act as a strength in one document and as ad hoc in the other; naming the tension is stronger than picking a side silently.
Do not import limitations you cannot source
Eight of the ten strengths have no stated limitation here. If you need one, cite the text you took it from rather than attributing it to teaching material that does not contain it.
What to carry forward
- Ten strengths, two limitations, and a stated principle that implies there should be more limitations than there are.
- The strengths list is hedged as non-exhaustive; ten is the count as printed, not a count the source states.
- Small samples undermine generalisation and broad recommendation — but no numeric sample size appears anywhere in the supplied material.
- Bias is said to enter at three points: gathering, interpretation and reporting. Use those three as the structure of your own account.
- Flexibility, cross-case comparison, generalisation and embeddedness are each treated as a strength in one supplied document and as a fault in the other.
Frequently asked questions
How many participants do I need for a qualitative study?
The supplied material does not say. Its only statement on the matter is that small sample sizes support depth and undermine generalisation, and no minimum, maximum or range appears anywhere in it. Take a figure from a sampling text and cite that text; do not attribute a number to this material.
Is flexibility a strength or a weakness?
The material says both. The study notes list flexible data collection and the ability to shift focus among the approach's strengths. The slide deck describes qualitative measures as created in an ad hoc manner and its design checklist requires collection and analysis approaches to be settled in advance. Neither document acknowledges the other, so present both and say which you relied on.
Can I claim all ten strengths for my study?
You can claim the ones your design actually exercises. The list is explicitly non-exhaustive and it is a list of things qualitative methods can do, not a list of things every qualitative study does. It also never states which strengths are distinctive to qualitative work — describing existing phenomena, for instance, is not.
Why does the material give so few limitations?
It does not say. The section is four sentences long and gives two limitations against a ten-item strengths list, despite opening with a principle implying that most limitations mirror inherent strengths. Eight of the ten strengths get no corresponding limitation, and the silence should not be read as a claim that none exists.
How do I write about researcher bias without undermining my own findings?
Use the three stages the material names — gathering, interpretation, reporting — and say what you did at each. Stating a risk and the control you applied to it reads as method; stating a risk alone reads as an apology. Note that the material identifies embeddedness as the risk while the deck instructs the researcher to become embedded, and offers no mitigation for the conflict.
References and source attribution
- Merriam, S 2009, Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
- Patton, M 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
- Miles, M & Huberman, M 1994, Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
- Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y (eds) 2005, Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
- The supplied teaching source: the study notes and slide deck on the nature of qualitative research, together with the module's research design material.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- List the ten strengths of qualitative methods in the supplied material and mark which have a stated limitation.
- Draft a limitations paragraph for a study based on eight interviews in one delivery directorate.
- Where does the supplied material treat the same property as both a strength and a fault?
- What does the material say about sample size, exactly?
- How should I describe researcher bias in a methodology chapter using only what this material supports?