Evaluation of Qualitative Research Methods (DP IB Psychology)

Evaluation of naturalistic observations

Strengths

• Participants are observed going about their daily activities, unaware of being observed

  • This means that their behaviour is natural and unforced

  • Thus this technique is high in ecological validity

• As participants are unaware that they are being observed they are unlikely to succumb to the 'Hawthorne effect'

Limitations

• As participants are unaware that they are being observed this raises ethical concerns

  • Participants cannot give informed consent or the right to withdraw and it may not be possible to debrief them

  • This means that naturalistic observations may lack ethical validity

• Naturalistic observations cannot be replicated due to the nature of the method

  • This makes it difficult to apply scientific rigour to them as no variables are controlled

  • This means that the method may be overly subjective

Evaluation of interviews

Structured interviews

Strengths

• The use of standardised questions means that the interview can be replicated and used by different researchers

  • This minimises the researcher effect as all researchers have to 'stick to the script' as it were rather than pursuing responses they find interesting

• Structured interviews may generate more quantitative data than unstructured interviews

  • This means that the results can be statistically analysed

  • This in turn increases the reliability of the findings

Limitations

• A predetermined set of questions may be restrictive

• The participant may say something which should be explored further but the format of the structured interview does not allow this

• This limits the usefulness of the method

Semi-structured interviews

Strengths

• The use of some standardised questions means that the interview can be replicated but the built-in flexibility means that semi-structured interviews offer both an interview plan and some freedom to explore topics

• This type of interview may be useful if the participant is initially reluctant to disclose much information or engage with the researcher

  • The predetermined questions can offer the researcher a way to build rapport with the participant

Limitations

• Semi-structured interviews may fall in the middle ground between structured and unstructured which means that they may not go far enough into either territory e.g.

  • There may be too many or not enough predetermined questions

  • There may be too much or too little time devoted to the unstructured aspect of the interview

    • Both of these outcomes would result in unsatisfactory data

• The interviewer must be skilled in conducting this type of interview as it involves a fine balance between structured and unstructured approaches

  • If the interviewer is not skilled enough then the results may not be of much use or interest to the topic being investigated

Unstructured/narrative interviews

Strengths

• Unstructured interviews are high in ecological validity

  • Participants have complete freedom to respond in any way they choose

  • The interview is tailored towards them as an individual

  • Thoughts, feelings, fears, hopes and emotions can all be openly expressed by the participant with no manipulation from the researcher

• The researcher has the flexibility to pursue any interesting topics that emerge during the interview

  • The topic can be discussed from several different perspectives

  • The original topic can even be abandoned if the participant takes the interview into new and interesting territory

  • This flexibility is a strength as it may open up new insight into what is being researched

Limitations

• The very free-flowing and unpredictable nature of unstructured interviews means that the entire process may become derailed

• The participant may wish to go into depth and detail on topics which are irrelevant to the research

• The participant may change tack frequently, mixing up timelines, confusing details, getting 'lost' in their narrative

  • This limits the credibility of unstructured interviews

Focus group interviews

Strengths

• This type of interview may be less stressful for participants as there is no pressure on them to speak in a group setting 

  • This means that once they do contribute to the procedure they are relaxed and able to express themselves freely

• The researcher can interact freely with the participants, asking them to clarify, explain, give examples etc. which would increase the validity of the findings

Limitations

• Some participants may dominate the group, causing others to feel uncomfortable, reserved or unable to participate

  • This would result in a biased exploration of the topic as not everyone's’ views would have been heard

• The researcher may unintentionally steer the course of the interview to suit their agenda 

  • This is known as the researcher effect which lowers the validity of the findings

Evaluation of case studies

Strengths

• Case studies provide rich, in-depth data which is high in explanatory power 

  • The researcher can gain insight into the unique experience of the participant

  • This is a holistic, idiographic approach, where the whole individual is considered

  • Thus, case studies are high in ecological validity

• Conducting a case study of an individual with an unusual, rare disorder or condition allows researchers to form conclusions as to how the majority of the population functions e.g.

  • The study of HM showed the effect on memory of brain damage due to hippocampal surgery

Limitations

• The findings from case studies only represent the person (or small group) who is the focus of the study

  • This means that they cannot be generalised to wider populations

• Case studies may suffer due to the relationship between the researcher and the participant

  • The researcher may begin to feel too close to the person they are studying which could result in them losing their objectivity in their reporting of the results

    • This loss of impartiality would impair the validity of the findings