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.
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
Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
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
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
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. //www.cebm.net/2011/06/2011-oxford-cebm-levels-evidence-introductory-document/.
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
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
Berwick, D. M. (2008). The science of improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(10), 1182–1184.
Article CAS Google Scholar
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
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.
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
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
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
Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6(2), 36–40.
Article Google Scholar
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
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks: Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
Article Google Scholar
van der Geest, S. (2006). Participeren in ziekte en zorg: meer over kwalitatief onderzoek. Huisarts en Wetenschap, 49(4), 283–287.
Article Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a Mixed Methods Design. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320(7226), 50–52.
Article CAS Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. //eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183.
Article CAS Google Scholar
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
Types of research problems | Data collection | Data analysis |
• Assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change) • What works for whom when, how and why? • Focussing on intervention improvement | • Document study• Observations (participant or non-participant)• Interviews (especially semi-structured) • Focus groups | • Transcription of audio-recordings and field notes into transcripts and protocols• Coding of protocols • Using qualitative data management software |
Mixed and multi-method | How to assess | How not to assess |
• Combinations of quantitative and/or qualitative methods, e.g.: • convergent parallel: quali and quanti in parallel • explanatory sequential: quanti followed by quali • exploratory sequential: quali followed by quanti | • Checklists• Reflexivity• Sampling strategies• Piloting• Co-coding• Member checking • Stakeholder involvement | • Protocol adherence• Sample size• Randomization• Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks” • Not being quantitative research |