If I had attempted this blog a couple of weeks ago, I would have probably concluded that qualitative research is scientific to a certain degree, but not as scientific as quantitative research. Quantitative research is definitely scientific due to the testing of a hypothesis, the data collection in laboratory conditions, and the use of reliable and valid data scales. Therefore, because qualitative data collection doesn’t include these, can it be argued as not scientific?
Well, in order for something to be scientific, it needs to be empirical and measurable (1). In other words, it needs to be reliable and valid, so that if the data is collected again, the same results are concluded, and that it actually measures what the researcher wanted to measure, respectively. So, do these criteria for scientific research apply to qualitative data collection methods? Well, qualitative methods concentrate on describing and categorizing data using analysis of text, speech, or conservation (2). They are usually taken from a natural setting, and not a laboratory setting, making the situation more life-like. Although not set on a research hypothesis, qualitative methods are based on a research question, and the whole method is more about exploration of a topic, as opposed to investigation of one. So, in terms of the scientific method, the methods of data collection – focus groups, interviews, and observations (3)– are recorded and transcribed for evidence, (4, 5) meaning their transcription can be tested for reliability, and there is greater ecological validity by using real-world settings. Therefore, qualitative measures have the reliability and validity concepts of the scientific design, and therefore the measurable and empirical aspects of it too.
However, arguably, the scientific method is about drawing conclusions about populations, and investigating how people behave and act, in terms of psychology. Qualitative methods don’t hold this factor, due to the investigation of individuals, and the focus on individual experiences and in depth insights. Qualitative methods are about people’s thoughts, experiences, and opinions, not about the group as a whole and the behaviours they exhibit. This, therefore, is a dent in my argument that qualitative data is scientific. Many argue that because it doesn’t collect the numbers ready for statistical analyses, that it is not scientific, yet many argue that qualitative data is vital for research, as often it is the pre-research for quantitative data collection (6).
As a psychologist, I feel that qualitative data collection is as scientific as quantitative collection, as it fulfills the scientific data criterion; it is just scientific in a different way.
1. Newton (1999). Rules for the study of natural philosophy: The system of the world
2. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
3. Marshall, C., & Rosenmann, G. B. (1998). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
4. Sandelowski, M. (1994). Focus on qualitative methods: Notes on transcription. Research in Nursing and Health, 17(4), 311-314
5. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
6. Flyvberg. B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245
psud6e 
A really interesting blog which looks at both methods in detail. I do have to disagree a little where you summarise that qualitative data is as scientific as using quantitative data. Both methods have their flaws, quantitative data may affect behaviour because participants usually know they are being tested and also this method rises some problems with validity. However, qualitative data is further away from the scientific criterion as its lacks reliablity/replicability because its unlikely that the same results would be found on numerous occasions of carrying out the experiment as its very subjective.
In my opinion although we need qualitative methods in research, i think that the measures are quite a distance from the requirements to be scientific – so i think that to settle my argument qualitative methods are not as scientific as quantitative.
Sometimes qualitative analyses are all we have though. Like case studies that we particularly use in neurology, for instance, Phineas Gage. Such case studies are all we have to gather what parts of the brain do what and how they react to tissue damage. Obviously we cannot cause such damage in participants to observe the effects, that’s inethical. But I feel personally that, although it might not be object, it’s better than knowing nothing at least!
Pingback: comments for TA due end of week 9 « Just another blog about stats
A lot of people who stick their nose up at qualitative research don’t often realise that sometimes it’s the best answer we have to guessing, on certain research areas. Look at the case study of the railroad worker Phineas Gage, who endured heavy damage to his frontal lobes from an iron pole. We cannot duplicate an instance like that in research for obvious ethical reasons, so we rely on such instances to apply to other people and to help develop our understanding of the brain.
Also, regarding the argument of whether qualitative method is scientific, it’s debated that it has the same features as quantitative research, being valid and objective, which some researchrs stuck by, however, it could be argued that by assessing the degree and extent of a conclusion is a quantitative factor, as qualitative is using rationalist reasoning, which is synonymous with working with numbers in a quantitative method, which was battled for by classical philosophers like Hume. So it’s worth thinking about whether qualitative method is actually a separate discipline or not!