Which of the following data collection methods may be used in qualitative research study design?

Data collection is an important tool for understanding the behavior and motivations of your audience. It helps you gather intel on the kinds of products, services, and initiatives they’d like to see. Good data also makes it easier for you to identify ways to improve the experience they have with your organization at every touchpoint. 

There are two main kinds of data collection — qualitative data collection and quantitative data collection. We’re going to focus on qualitative data-collection methods here. 

What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative data?

Quantitative data is numerical data that can be ranked, categorized, and measured — like the number of customers who spent over $50 last year, the gross or net profit for a specific time period, or the number of subscribers who converted into buyers from an email marketing campaign. 

This kind of data answers closed-ended questions, such as “how many” or “how much,” and you can collect it through surveys, polls, and questionnaires.

Qualitative data is descriptive rather than numerical, and it looks for context — it’s about people’s perceptions. You gather it to understand the reasons and motivations that drive certain behavior. For example, qualitative data can reveal people’s feelings and opinions about your organization, and you can use it to determine why customers buy your products (or don’t). 

Quantitative data can tell you about your market share, the demographics of your customers, and how often they buy your products or use your services. Basically, qualitative data can give you the story behind the story. One way to gather this data is through open-ended surveys and questionnaires, but let’s look at a few more.

Qualitative data-collection methods

One-on-one interviews

Interviews are one of the most common qualitative data-collection methods, and they’re a great approach when you need to gather highly personalized information. Informal, conversational interviews are ideal for open-ended questions that allow you to gain rich, detailed context.

Open-ended surveys and questionnaires 

Open-ended surveys and questionnaires allow participants to answer freely at length, rather than choosing from a set number of responses. For example, you might ask an open-ended question like “Why don’t you eat ABC brand pizza?” 

You would then provide space for people to answer narratively, rather than simply giving them a specific selection of responses to choose from — like “I’m a vegan,” “It’s too expensive,” or “I don’t like pizza.” 

Focus groups

Focus groups are similar to interviews, except that you conduct them in a group format. You might use a focus group when one-on-one interviews are too difficult or time-consuming to schedule.  

They’re also helpful when you need to gather data on a specific group of people. For example, if you want to get feedback on a new marketing campaign from a number of demographically similar people in your target market or allow people to share their views on a new product, focus groups are a good way to go.

Observation

Observation is a method in which a data collector observes subjects in the course of their regular routines, takes detailed field notes, and/or records subjects via video or audio. 

Case studies

In the case study method, you analyze a combination of multiple qualitative data sources to draw inferences and come to conclusions. 

When should you use qualitative vs quantitative data-collection methods?

The truth is, to get the best results, you need to rely on both quantitative and qualitative data-collection methods. You get deeper insights when you use a combination of the two.  

Qualitative research offers context and nuance, and it can help you develop a fuller understanding of the complexities of human behavior related to your organization’s products or services. It’s data wrapped in a rich contextual story. 

That said, qualitative data research can take a lot of time to collect and analyze, and it can sometimes result in biased conclusions. That’s why you should pair it with quantitative data collection to get the best, most accurate information.

For businesses and organizations that want to improve their marketing and outreach game, qualitative data research methods can help 

• Determine obstacles to purchasing your company’s products or using your company’s services 
• Gain insights into how clients and customers perceive your brand
• Identify areas for improvement across the entire brand discovery and buying cycle
• Pinpoint where your messaging may be muddled or confusing
• Discover in-demand product features to implement
• Understand how your brand compares to others in the market
• Gauge marketing campaign performance
• Identify how your website, apps, and other online assets are performing

Jotform is a great resource for creating the kind of open-ended surveys and questionnaires that you need for qualitative data collection.  And you can use Jotform for quantitative data collection as well. Whatever your data-collection needs, Jotform can help with a wide range of surveys and questionnaires.

This article is originally published on Aug 02, 2021, and updated on Oct 11, 2022.

1. Philipsen, H., & Vernooij-Dassen, M. (2007). Kwalitatief onderzoek: nuttig, onmisbaar en uitdagend. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Qualitative research: useful, indispensable and challenging. In: Qualitative research: Practical methods for medical practice (pp. 5–12). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

2. Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.

3. Kelly, J., Dwyer, J., Willis, E., & Pekarsky, B. (2014). Travelling to the city for hospital care: Access factors in country aboriginal patient journeys. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22(3), 109–113.

   Article  Google Scholar 

4. Nilsen, P., Ståhl, C., Roback, K., & Cairney, P. (2013). Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Science, 8(1), 1–12.

   Article  Google Scholar 

5. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou, P., Greenhalgh, T., Heneghan, C., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Phillips, B., & Thornton, H. (2011). The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/2011/06/2011-oxford-cebm-levels-evidence-introductory-document/.

6. Eakin, J. M. (2016). Educating critical qualitative health researchers in the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 107–118.

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. May, A., & Mathijssen, J. (2015). Alternatieven voor RCT bij de evaluatie van effectiviteit van interventies!? Eindrapportage. In Alternatives for RCTs in the evaluation of effectiveness of interventions!? Final report.

   Google Scholar 

8. Berwick, D. M. (2008). The science of improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(10), 1182–1184.

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

9. Christ, T. W. (2014). Scientific-based research and randomized controlled trials, the “gold” standard? Alternative paradigms and mixed methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(1), 72–80.

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. Lamont, T., Barber, N., Jd, P., Fulop, N., Garfield-Birkbeck, S., Lilford, R., Mear, L., Raine, R., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2016). New approaches to evaluating complex health and care systems. BMJ, 352:i154.

11. Drabble, S. J., & O’Cathain, A. (2015). Moving from Randomized Controlled Trials to Mixed Methods Intervention Evaluation. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 406–425). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

12. Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science : IS, 8, 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

13. Hak, T. (2007). Waarnemingsmethoden in kwalitatief onderzoek. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Observation methods in qualitative research] (pp. 13–25). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

14. Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6(2), 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

15. Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

16. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks: Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods.

17. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

18. van der Geest, S. (2006). Participeren in ziekte en zorg: meer over kwalitatief onderzoek. Huisarts en Wetenschap, 49(4), 283–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Hijmans, E., & Kuyper, M. (2007). Het halfopen interview als onderzoeksmethode. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [The half-open interview as research method (pp. 43–51). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

20. Jansen, H. (2007). Systematiek en toepassing van de kwalitatieve survey. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Systematics and implementation of the qualitative survey (pp. 27–41). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

21. Pv, R., & Peremans, L. (2007). Exploreren met focusgroepgesprekken: de ‘stem’ van de groep onder de loep. In L. PLBJ & H. TCo (Eds.), Kwalitatief onderzoek: Praktische methoden voor de medische praktijk. [Exploring with focus group conversations: the “voice” of the group under the magnifying glass (pp. 53–64). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

    Google Scholar 

22. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

23. Boeije H: Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen, [Analysis in qualitative research: Thinking and doing] vol. Den Haag Boom Lemma uitgevers; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

24. Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015). Designing Multimethod Research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 185–205). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

25. Archibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W. E. (2015). Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a Mixed Methods Design. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

27. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

28. O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(9), 1245–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

30. Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

31. Marlett, N., Shklarov, S., Marshall, D., Santana, M. J., & Wasylak, T. (2015). Building new roles and relationships in research: A model of patient engagement research. Quality of Life Research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 24(5), 1057–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

32. Demian, M. N., Lam, N. N., Mac-Way, F., Sapir-Pichhadze, R., & Fernandez, N. (2017). Opportunities for engaging patients in kidney research. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 4, 2054358117703070–2054358117703070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

33. Noyes, J., McLaughlin, L., Morgan, K., Roberts, A., Stephens, M., Bourne, J., Houlston, M., Houlston, J., Thomas, S., Rhys, R. G., et al. (2019). Designing a co-productive study to overcome known methodological challenges in organ donation research with bereaved family members. Health Expectations. 22(4):824–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

34. Piil, K., Jarden, M., & Pii, K. H. (2019). Research agenda for life-threatening cancer. European Journal Cancer Care (Engl), 28(1), e12935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

35. Hofmann, D., Ibrahim, F., Rose, D., Scott, D. L., Cope, A., Wykes, T., & Lempp, H. (2015). Expectations of new treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: Developing a patient-generated questionnaire. Health Expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 18(5), 995–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Jun, M., Manns, B., Laupacis, A., Manns, L., Rehal, B., Crowe, S., & Hemmelgarn, B. R. (2015). Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: A scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 2, 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

37. Elsie Baker, S., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough? In National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf.

38. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

39. Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Page 2