qualitative research law

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, analyzing the law qualitatively.

Qualitative Research Journal

ISSN : 1443-9883

Article publication date: 14 September 2022

Issue publication date: 4 January 2023

This article develops a methodological framework to support qualitative analyses of legal texts. Scholars across the social sciences and humanities use qualitative methods to study legal phenomena but often overlook formal legal texts as productive sites for analysis. Moreover, when qualitative researchers do analyze legal texts, they rarely discuss the methodological underpinnings that support their approach. A thorough consideration of the methodological underpinnings of qualitative approaches to legal analysis is therefore warranted.

Design/methodology/approach

By bringing critical legal theory into conversation with qualitative methodology, this article outlines a set of key principles to inform qualitative approaches to reading the law.

To construct this methodological framework, this article first distinguishes between qualitative approaches to textual analysis and the doctrinal approaches undertaken in legal practice and formal legal scholarship. It then considers how this qualitative approach might be applied to one particular genre of legal text: namely, judicial opinions, otherwise known as reasons for judgment. In doing so, it argues that robust qualitative analyses of legal texts must consider the unique characteristics of those texts, such as their distinct form, voice, rhetorical structure, and performative capabilities.

Originality/value

The methodological framework outlined here should encourage qualitative researchers to approach legal texts more readily and challenge the hegemony of doctrinal approaches to legal interpretation in social science research.

• Qualitative data analysis
• Methodological theory
• Socio-legal research methods
• Legal judgments
• Judicial opinions

Mitchell, M. (2023), "Analyzing the law qualitatively", Qualitative Research Journal , Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 102-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-04-2022-0061

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Harvard Empirical Legal Studies Series

5005 Wasserstein Hall (WCC) 1585 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA02138

Contact the Graduate Program

The  Harvard Empirical Legal Studies (HELS) Series  explores a range of empirical methods, both qualitative and quantitative, and their application in legal scholarship in different areas of the law. It is a platform for engaging with current empirical research, hearing from leading scholars working in a variety of fields, and developing ideas and empirical projects.

HELS is open to all students and scholars with an interest in empirical research. No prior background in empirical legal research is necessary. If you would like to join HELS and receive information about our sessions, please subscribe to our mailing list by completing the HELS mailing list form .

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the current HELS coordinator,  Tiran Bajgiran.

All times are provided in U.S. Eastern Time (UTC/GMT-0400).

Spring 2024 Sessions

Empire and the shaping of american constitutional law.

Aziz Rana, Wellesley

Monday, Mar. 25, 12:15 PM Lewis 214

This talk will explore how US imperial practice has influenced the methods and boundaries of American constitutional study.

Historical Approaches to Neoliberal Legality

Quinn Slobodian, Boston University

Thursday, Mar. 28, 12:15 PM Lewis 202

Fall 2023 Sessions

On critical quantitative methods.

Hendrik Theine , WU, Vienna/Univ. of Pennsylvania Monday, Nov. 6, 12:30 PM Lewis 202

Economic inequality is a profound challenge in the United States. Both income and wealth inequality increased remarkably since the 1980s. This growing concentration of economic inequality creates real-world political and societal problems which are increasingly reflected by social science scholarship. Among those detriments is for instance the increasing economic and political power of the super-rich. The research at hand takes a new radical look at media discourses of economic inequality over four decades in various elite US newspapers by way of quantitative critical discourse analysis. It shows that up until recently, there was minimal media coverage of economic inequality, but interest has steadily increased since then. Initially, the focus was primarily on income inequality, but over time, it has expanded to encompass broader issues of inequality. Notably, the discourse on economic inequality is significantly influenced by party politics and elections. The study also highlights certain limitations in the discourse. Critiques of inequality tend to remain at a general level, discussing concepts like capitalist and racial inequality. There is relatively less focus on policy-related discussions, such as tax reform, or discussions centered around specific actors, like the wealthy and their charitable contributions.

Spring 2023 Sessions

How to conduct qualitative empirical legal scholarship.

Jessica Silbey , Professor of Law at Boston University Yanakakis Faculty Research Scholar

Friday, March 31, 12:30 PM WCC 3034

This session explores the benefits and some limitations of qualitative research methods to study intellectual property law. It compares quantitative research methods and the economic analysis of law in the same field as other kinds of empirical inquiry that are helpful in collaboration but limited in isolation. Creativity and innovation, the practices intellectual property law purports to regulate, are not amenable to quantification without identifying qualitative variables. The lessons from this session apply across fields of legal research.

Fall 2022 Sessions

How to read quantitative empirical legal scholarship.

Holger Spamann , Lawrence R. Grove Professor of Law

Friday, September 13, 12:30 PM WCC 3007

As legal scholars, what tools do we need to read critically and engage productively with quantitative empirical scholarship? In the first session of the 2022-2023 Harvard Empirical Legal Studies Series, Harvard Law School Professor Holger Spamann will compare and discuss different quantitative studies. This session will be a first approximation to be able to understand and eventually produce empirical legal scholarship. All students and scholars interested in empirical research are welcome and encouraged to attend.

How do People Learn from Not Being Caught? An Experimental Investigation of a “Non-Occurrence Bias”

Tom Zur , John M. Olin Fellow and SJD candidate, HLS

Friday, November 4, 2:00 PM WCC 3007

The law and economics literature on specific deterrence has long theorized that offenders rationally learn from being caught and sanctioned. This paper presents evidence from a randomized controlled trial showing that offenders learn differently when not being caught as compared to being caught, which we call a “non-occurrence bias.” This implies that the socially optimal level of investment in law enforcement should be lower than stipulated by rational choice theory, even on grounds of deterrence alone.

Empirical Legal Research: Using Data and Methodology to Craft a Research Agenda

Florencia Marotta-Wurgler , NYU Boxer Family Professor of Law Faculty Director, NYU Law in Buenos Aires

Monday, November 14, 12:30 PM Lewis 202

Using a series of examples, this discussion will focus on strategies to conduct empirical legal research and develop a robust research agenda. Topics will include creating a data set and leveraging to answer unexplored questions, developing meaningful methodologies to address legal questions, building on existing work to develop a robust research agenda, and engaging the process of automation and scaling up to develop large scale data sets using machine learning approaches. 

Resources for Empirical Research

• HLS Library Empirical Research Service
• Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Research (IQSS)
• Harvard Committee on the Use of Human Subjects
• Qualtrics Harvard
• Harvard Kennedy School Behavioral Insights Group

Past HELS Sessions

Holger Spamann (Lawrence R. Grove Professor of Law) – How to Read Quantitative Empirical Legal Scholarship?

Katerina Linos (Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law) – Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing

Aziza Ahmed (Professor of Law at UC Irvine School of Law) – Risk and Rage: How Feminists Transformed the Law and Science of AIDS

Amy Kapczynski and Yochai Benkler –(Professor of Law at Yale; Professor of Law at Harvard) Law & Political Economy and the Question of Method

Jessica Silbey – (Boston University School of Law) Ethnography in Legal Scholarship

Roberto Tallarita – (Lecturer on Law, and Associate Director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard) The Limits of Portfolio Primacy

Susan S. Silbey – (Leon and Anne Goldberg Professor of Humanities, Sociology and Anthropology at MIT) HELS with Susan Silbey: Analyzing Ethnographic Data and Producting New Theory

Cass R. Sunstein  (University Professor at Harvard) – Optimal Sludge? The Price of Program Integrity

Scott L. Cummings  (Professor of Legal Ethics and Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law) – The Making of Public Interest Lawyers

Elliot Ash  (Assistant Professor of Law, Economics, and Data Science at ETH Zürich) – Gender Attitudes in the Judiciary: Evidence from U.S. Circuit Courts

Kathleen Thelen  (Ford Professor of Political Science at MIT) – Employer Organization in the United States: Historical Legacies and the Long Shadow of the American Courts

Omer Kimhi  (Associate Professor at Haifa University Law School) – Caught In a Circle of Debt – Consumer Bankruptcy Discharge and Its Aftereffects

Suresh Naidu  (Professor in Economics and International and Public Affairs, Columbia School of International and Public Affairs) – Ideas Have Consequences: The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice

Vardit Ravitsky  (Full Professor at the Bioethics Program, School of Public Health, University of Montreal) – Empirical Bioethics: The Example of Research on Prenatal Testing

Johnnie Lotesta  (Postdoctoral Democracy Fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School) – Opinion Crafting and the Making of U.S. Labor Law in the States

David Hagmann  (Harvard Kennedy School) – The Agent-Selection Dilemma in Distributive Bargaining

Cass R. Sunstein  (Harvard Law School) – Rear Visibility and Some Problems for Economic Analysis (with Particular Reference to Experience Goods)

Talia Gillis  (Ph.D. Candidate and S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Business School and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Law School) – False Dreams of Algorithmic Fairness: The Case of Credit Pricing

Tzachi Raz (Ph.D. Candidate in Economics at Harvard University) – There’s No Such Thing as Free Land: The Homestead Act and Economic Development

Crystal Yang (Harvard Law School) – Fear and the Safety Net: Evidence from Secure Communities

Adaner Usmani (Harvard Sociology) – The Origins of Mass Incarceration

Jim Greiner (Harvard Law School) – Randomized Control Trials in the Legal Profession

Talia Shiff  (Postdoctoral Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and Department of Sociology, Harvard University) – Legal Standards and Moral Worth in Frontline Decision-Making: Evaluations of Victimization in US Asylum Determinations

Francesca Gino (Harvard Business School) – Rebel Talent

Joscha Legewie (Department of Sociology, Harvard University) – The Effects of Policing on Educational Outcomes and Health of Minority Youth

Ryan D. Enos (Department of Government, Harvard University) – The Space Between Us: Social Geography and Politics

Katerina Linos (Berkeley Law, University of California) – How Technology Transforms Refugee Law

Roie Hauser (Visiting Researcher at the Program on Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School) – Term Length and the Role of Independent Directors in Acquisitions

Anina Schwarzenbach (Fellow, National Security Program, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School) – A Challenge to Legitimacy: Effects of Stop-and-Search Police Contacts on Young People’s Relations with the Police

Cass R. Sunstein (Harvard Law School) – Willingness to Pay to Use Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, Snapchat, and More: A National Survey

Netta Barak-Corren (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) – The War Within

James Greiner & Holger Spamann (Harvard Law School) – Panel: Why​ ​Does​ ​the​ ​Legal​ ​Profession​ ​Resist​ ​Rigorous​ ​Empiricism?

Mila Versteeg (University of Virginia School of Law) (with Adam Chilton) – Do Constitutional Rights Make a Difference?

Susan S. Silbey (MIT Department of Anthropology) (with Patricia Ewick) – The Common Place of Law

Holger Spamann (Harvard Law School) – Empirical Legal Studies: What They Are and How NOT to Do Them

Arevik Avedian (Harvard Law School) – How to Read an Empirical Paper in Law

James Greiner (Harvard Law School) – Randomized Experiments in the Law

Robert MacCoun (Stanford Law School) – Coping with Rapidly Changing Standards and Practices in the Empirical Sciences (including ELS)

Mario Small (Harvard Department of Sociology) – Qualitative Research in the Big Data Era

Adam Chilton (University of Chicago Law School) – Trade Openness and Antitrust Law

Jennifer Lerner (Harvard Kennedy School and Department of Psychology) – Anger in Legal Decision Making

Sarah Dryden-Peterson (Harvard Graduate School of Education) – Respect, Reciprocity, and Relationships in Interview-Based Research

Charles Wang (Harvard Business School) – Natural Experiments and Court Rulings

Guhan Subramanian (Harvard Law School) – Determining Fair Value

James Greiner (Harvard Law School) – Randomized Control Trials and the Impact of Legal Aid

Maya Sen (Harvard Kennedy School) – The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges

Daria Roithmayr (University of Southern California Law School) – The Dynamics of Police Violence

Crystal Yang (Harvard Law School) – Empiricism in the Service of Criminal Law and Theory

Oren Bar-Gill (Harvard Law School) – Is Empirical Legal Studies Changing Law and Economics?

Elizabeth Linos (Harvard Kennedy School; VP, Head of Research and Evaluation, North America, Behavioral Insights Team) – Behavioral Law and Economics in Action: BIT, BIG, and the policymaking of choice architecture

Meira Levinson (Harvard School of Education) – Justice in Schools: Qualitative Sociological Research and Normative Ethics in Schools

Howell Jackson (HLS) – Cost-Benefit Analysis

Michael Heise (Cornell Law School) – Quantitative Research in Law: An Introductory Workshop

Susan Silbey (MIT) – Interviews: An Introductory Workshop

Kevin Quinn (UC Berkeley) – Quantifying Judicial Decisions

Holger Spamman (Harvard Law School) – Comparative Empirical Research

James Greiner (Harvard Law School) – Randomized Controlled Trials in the Research of Legal Problems

Michael Heise (Cornell Law School) – Quantitative Research in Law

James Greiner (Harvard Law School) – A Typology of Empirical Methods in Law

David Wilkins (Harvard Law School) – Mixed Methods Work and the Legal Profession

Tom Tyler (Yale Law School) – Fairness and Policing

Modal Gallery

Legal Research Strategy

Preliminary analysis, organization, secondary sources, primary sources, updating research, identifying an end point, getting help, about this guide.

This guide will walk a beginning researcher though the legal research process step-by-step. These materials are created with the 1L Legal Research & Writing course in mind. However, these resources will also assist upper-level students engaged in any legal research project.

How to Strategize

Legal research must be comprehensive and precise.  One contrary source that you miss may invalidate other sources you plan to rely on.  Sticking to a strategy will save you time, ensure completeness, and improve your work product. 

Follow These Steps

Running Time: 3 minutes, 13 seconds.

Make sure that you don't miss any steps by using our:

• Legal Research Strategy Checklist

If you get stuck at any time during the process, check this out:

• Ten Tips for Moving Beyond the Brick Wall in the Legal Research Process, by Marsha L. Baum

Understanding the Legal Questions

A legal question often originates as a problem or story about a series of events. In law school, these stories are called fact patterns. In practice, facts may arise from a manager or an interview with a potential client. Start by doing the following:

• Read anything you have been given
• Analyze the facts and frame the legal issues
• Assess what you know and need to learn
• Note the jurisdiction and any primary law you have been given
• Generate potential search terms

Jurisdiction

Legal rules will vary depending on where geographically your legal question will be answered. You must determine the jurisdiction in which your claim will be heard. These resources can help you learn more about jurisdiction and how it is determined:

• Legal Treatises on Jurisdiction
• LII Wex Entry on Jurisdiction

This map indicates which states are in each federal appellate circuit:

Getting Started

Once you have begun your research, you will need to keep track of your work. Logging your research will help you to avoid missing sources and explain your research strategy. You will likely be asked to explain your research process when in practice. Researchers can keep paper logs, folders on Westlaw or Lexis, or online citation management platforms.

Organizational Methods

Tracking with paper or excel.

Many researchers create their own tracking charts.  Be sure to include:

• Search Date
• Topics/Keywords/Search Strategy
• Citation to Relevant Source Found
• Save Locations
• Follow Up Needed

Consider using the following research log as a starting place: 

• Sample Research Log

Tracking with Folders

Westlaw and Lexis offer options to create folders, then save and organize your materials there.

• Lexis Advance Folders
• Westlaw Edge Folders

Tracking with Citation Management Software

For long term projects, platforms such as Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley, or Refworks might be useful. These are good tools to keep your research well organized. Note, however, that none of these platforms substitute for doing your own proper Bluebook citations. Learn more about citation management software on our other research guides:

• Guide to Zotero for Harvard Law Students by Harvard Law School Library Research Services Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 175 views this year

Types of Sources

There are three different types of sources: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary.  When doing legal research you will be using mostly primary and secondary sources.  We will explore these different types of sources in the sections below.

Secondary sources often explain legal principles more thoroughly than a single case or statute. Starting with them can help you save time.

Secondary sources are particularly useful for:

• Learning the basics of a particular area of law
• Understanding key terms of art in an area
• Identifying essential cases and statutes

Consider the following when deciding which type of secondary source is right for you:

• Scope/Breadth
• Depth of Treatment
• Currentness/Reliability

For a deep dive into secondary sources visit:

• Secondary Sources: ALRs, Encyclopedias, Law Reviews, Restatements, & Treatises by Catherine Biondo Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 2910 views this year

Legal Dictionaries & Encyclopedias

Legal dictionaries.

Legal dictionaries are similar to other dictionaries that you have likely used before.

• Black's Law Dictionary
• Ballentine's Law Dictionary

Legal Encyclopedias

Legal encyclopedias contain brief, broad summaries of legal topics, providing introductions and explaining terms of art. They also provide citations to primary law and relevant major law review articles.  

Here are the two major national encyclopedias:

• American Jurisprudence (AmJur) This resource is also available in Westlaw & Lexis .
• Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS)

Treatises are books on legal topics.  These books are a good place to begin your research.  They provide explanation, analysis, and citations to the most relevant primary sources. Treatises range from single subject overviews to deep treatments of broad subject areas.

It is important to check the date when the treatise was published. Many are either not updated, or are updated through the release of newer editions.

To find a relevant treatise explore:

• Legal Treatises by Subject by Catherine Biondo Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 2170 views this year

American Law Reports (ALR)

American Law Reports (ALR) contains in-depth articles on narrow topics of the law. ALR articles, are often called annotations. They provide background, analysis, and citations to relevant cases, statutes, articles, and other annotations. ALR annotations are invaluable tools to quickly find primary law on narrow legal questions.

This resource is available in both Westlaw and Lexis:

• American Law Reports on Westlaw (includes index)
• American Law Reports on Lexis

Law Reviews & Journals

Law reviews are scholarly publications, usually edited by law students in conjunction with faculty members. They contain both lengthy articles and shorter essays by professors and lawyers. They also contain comments, notes, or developments in the law written by law students. Articles often focus on new or emerging areas of law and may offer critical commentary. Some law reviews are dedicated to a particular topic while others are general. Occasionally, law reviews will include issues devoted to proceedings of panels and symposia.

Law review and journal articles are extremely narrow and deep with extensive references. 

To find law review articles visit:

• Law Journal Library on HeinOnline
• Law Reviews & Journals on LexisNexis
• Law Reviews & Journals on Westlaw

Restatements

Restatements are highly regarded distillations of common law, prepared by the American Law Institute (ALI). ALI is a prestigious organization comprised of judges, professors, and lawyers. They distill the "black letter law" from cases to indicate trends in common law. Resulting in a “restatement” of existing common law into a series of principles or rules. Occasionally, they make recommendations on what a rule of law should be.

Restatements are not primary law. However, they are considered persuasive authority by many courts.

Restatements are organized into chapters, titles, and sections.  Sections contain the following:

• a concisely stated rule of law,
• comments to clarify the rule,
• hypothetical examples,
• explanation of purpose, and
• exceptions to the rule  

To access restatements visit:

• American Law Institute Library on HeinOnline
• Restatements & Principles of the Law on LexisNexis
• Restatements & Principles of Law on Westlaw

Primary Authority

Primary authority is "authority that issues directly from a law-making body."   Authority , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).   Sources of primary authority include:

• Constitutions
• Statutes 

Regulations

Access to primary legal sources is available through:

• Bloomberg Law
• Free & Low Cost Alternatives

Statutes (also called legislation) are "laws enacted by legislative bodies", such as Congress and state legislatures.  Statute , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

We typically start primary law research here. If there is a controlling statute, cases you look for later will interpret that law. There are two types of statutes, annotated and unannotated.

Annotated codes are a great place to start your research. They combine statutory language with citations to cases, regulations, secondary sources, and other relevant statutes. This can quickly connect you to the most relevant cases related to a particular law. Unannotated Codes provide only the text of the statute without editorial additions. Unannotated codes, however, are more often considered official and used for citation purposes.

For a deep dive on federal and state statutes, visit:

• Statutes: US and State Codes by Mindy Kent Last Updated Feb 16, 2024 1703 views this year
• 50 State Surveys

Want to learn more about the history or legislative intent of a law?  Learn how to get started here:

• Legislative History Get an introduction to legislative histories in less than 5 minutes.
• Federal Legislative History Research Guide

Regulations are rules made by executive departments and agencies. Not every legal question will require you to search regulations. However, many areas of law are affected by regulations. So make sure not to skip this step if they are relevant to your question.

To learn more about working with regulations, visit:

• Administrative Law Research by AJ Blechner Last Updated Sep 12, 2023 351 views this year

Case Basics

In many areas, finding relevant caselaw will comprise a significant part of your research. This Is particularly true in legal areas that rely heavily on common law principles.

Running Time: 3 minutes, 10 seconds.

Unpublished Cases

Up to  86% of federal case opinions are unpublished. You must determine whether your jurisdiction will consider these unpublished cases as persuasive authority. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure have an overarching rule, Rule 32.1  Each circuit also has local rules regarding citations to unpublished opinions. You must understand both the Federal Rule and the rule in your jurisdiction.

• Federal and Local Rules of Appellate Procedure 32.1 (Dec. 2021).
• Type of Opinion or Order Filed in Cases Terminated on the Merits, by Circuit (Sept. 2021).

Each state also has its own local rules which can often be accessed through:

• State Bar Associations
• State Courts Websites

First Circuit

• First Circuit Court Rule 32.1.0

Second Circuit

• Second Circuit Court Rule 32.1.1

Third Circuit

• Third Circuit Court Rule 5.7

Fourth Circuit

• Fourth Circuit Court Rule 32.1

Fifth Circuit

• Fifth Circuit Court Rule 47.5

Sixth Circuit

• Sixth Circuit Court Rule 32.1

Seventh Circuit

• Seventh Circuit Court Rule 32.1

Eighth Circuit

• Eighth Circuit Court Rule 32.1A

Ninth Circuit

• Ninth Circuit Court Rule 36-3

Tenth Circuit

• Tenth Circuit Court Rule 32.1

Eleventh Circuit

• Eleventh Circuit Court Rule 32.1

D.C. Circuit

• D.C. Circuit Court Rule 32.1

Federal Circuit

• Federal Circuit Court Rule 32.1

Finding Cases

Headnotes show the key legal points in a case. Legal databases use these headnotes to guide researchers to other cases on the same topic. They also use them to organize concepts explored in cases by subject. Publishers, like Westlaw and Lexis, create headnotes, so they are not consistent across databases.

Headnotes are organized by subject into an outline that allows you to search by subject. This outline is known as a "digest of cases." By browsing or searching the digest you can retrieve all headnotes covering a particular topic. This can help you identify particularly important cases on the relevant subject.

Running Time: 4 minutes, 43 seconds.

Each major legal database has its own digest:

• Topic Navigator (Lexis)
• Key Digest System (Westlaw)

Start by identifying a relevant topic in a digest.  Then you can limit those results to your jurisdiction for more relevant results.  Sometimes, you can keyword search within only the results on your topic in your jurisdiction.  This is a particularly powerful research method.

One Good Case Method

After following the steps above, you will have identified some relevant cases on your topic. You can use good cases you find to locate other cases addressing the same topic. These other cases often apply similar rules to a range of diverse fact patterns.

• in Lexis click "More Like This Headnote"
• in Westlaw click "Cases that Cite This Headnote"

to focus on the terms of art or key words in a particular headnote. You can use this feature to find more cases with similar language and concepts.  ​

Ways to Use Citators

A citator is "a catalogued list of cases, statutes, and other legal sources showing the subsequent history and current precedential value of those sources.  Citators allow researchers to verify the authority of a precedent and to find additional sources relating to a given subject." Citator , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

Each major legal database has its own citator.  The two most popular are Keycite on Westlaw and Shepard's on Lexis.

• Keycite Information Page
• Shepard's Information Page

Making Sure Your Case is Still Good Law

This video answers common questions about citators:

For step-by-step instructions on how to use Keycite and Shepard's see the following:

• Shepard's Video Tutorial
• Shepard's Handout
• Shepard's Editorial Phrase Dictionary
• KeyCite Video Tutorial
• KeyCite Handout
• KeyCite Editorial Phrase Dictionary

Using Citators For

Citators serve three purposes: (1) case validation, (2) better understanding, and (3) additional research.

Case Validation

Is my case or statute good law?

• Parallel citations
• Prior and subsequent history
• Negative treatment suggesting you should no longer cite to holding.

Better Understanding

Has the law in this area changed?

• Later cases on the same point of law
• Positive treatment, explaining or expanding the law.
• Negative Treatment, narrowing or distinguishing the law.

Track Research

Who is citing and writing about my case or statute?

• Secondary sources that discuss your case or statute.
• Cases in other jurisdictions that discuss your case or statute.

Knowing When to Start Writing

For more guidance on when to stop your research see:

• Terminating Research, by Christina L. Kunz

Automated Services

Automated services can check your work and ensure that you are not missing important resources. You can learn more about several automated brief check services.  However, these services are not a replacement for conducting your own diligent research .

• Automated Brief Check Instructional Video

Contact Us!

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

This guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License .

You may reproduce any part of it for noncommercial purposes as long as credit is included and it is shared in the same manner. 

• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2023 2:56 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/researchstrategy

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing

We are extremely grateful to Catherine Albiston, Lauren Edelman, Stavros Gadinis, David Lieberman, Aila Matanock, Alison Post, Kevin Quinn, Karen Tani, and participants at the Berkeley Law Faculty Workshop for their generous comments.

• Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing on Facebook
• Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing on Twitter
• Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing on Email
• Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing on LinkedIn

Typical law review articles not only clarify what the law is, but also examine the history of the current rules, assess the status quo, and present reform proposals. To make theoretical arguments more plausible, legal scholars frequently use examples: they draw on cases, statutes, political debates, and other sources. But legal scholars often pick their examples unsystematically and explore them armed with only the tools for doctrinal analysis. Unsystematically chosen examples can help develop plausible theories, but they rarely suffice to convince readers that these theories are true, especially when plausible alternative explanations exist. This project presents methodological insights from multiple social science disciplines and from history that could strengthen legal scholarship by improving research design, case selection, and case analysis. We describe qualitative techniques rarely found in law review writing, such as process tracing, theoretically informed sampling, and most similar case design, among others. We provide examples of best practice and illustrate how each technique can be adapted for legal sources and arguments.

I.  Imagining Alternatives and Identifying a Puzzle

“[A]ll you really need to have is an ‘explanandum’—a puzzle, paradox, or conundrum about the social world that in one way or another upsets our expectations, and for which there is no ready answer. But this is not at all a trivial accomplishment.” 16

For social scientific research, the starting point—and perhaps half the battle—is identifying a puzzle that cannot be easily solved. Legal advocacy training does not highlight this element of puzzlement. In fact, many masterful legal strategists downplay the novelty of their arguments so that courts can more easily accept them.

To identify a puzzle, one can begin by imagining alternative outcomes to the one that occurred. The sources legal scholars regularly use are superb starting points for this task. The adversarial process inherently offers (at least) two alternative ways of understanding a set of facts—the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s. Amicus briefs and other third-party interventions can also help sketch out alternative options. Additionally, separate opinions from judges, including powerful concurrences and dissents, provide a range of plausible alternative legal outcomes. Furthermore, trial and appellate court judges can offer different answers to the same question, creating legally plausible alternative conclusions. In short, the legal process itself offers a broad range of well-constructed alternatives.

Legal scholars often go beyond these first steps to construct plausible but nonobvious alternative worlds, and draw comparisons across historical periods, legal fields, and jurisdictions. For example, in Pigs and Positivism , Professor Hendrik Hartog constructs a nonobvious but plausible counterfactual by examining a case concerning pig owners’ right to let pigs roam in urban settings. 17 Predictably, the prosecution emphasized the risks and nuisances pigs create, while the defense minimized them. 18 Drawing on historical and comparative evidence, Hartog spells out a plausible, alternative understanding of the case. Defense lawyers could have argued that pig keepers possess a customary right to let their pigs roam freely because this was a commonly accepted practice historically. 19 Despite its plausibility, the defense did not make a claim about custom—why?

By identifying this third plausible alternative, Hartog demonstrates that, while prosecutors and defense attorneys predictably disagree, the terms of disagreement explain the bounds of what is legally acceptable in particular times and places. 20 Hartog shows that an argument about custom was just outside the bounds of acceptability in early nineteenth-century New York City, even though it might have been entirely acceptable at a slightly earlier moment, in a more rural American setting, or in contemporary Britain. 21

After imagining plausible alternatives, scholars select cases that allow them to effectively explore why a particular path was or should have been chosen rather than its alternative. In the Part that follows, we present useful techniques for scholars to systematically select cases.

II.  Sampling and Case Selection

Concerns about case selection and sampling are widespread among legal scholars, particularly the worry of cherry-picking cases that best fit an argument. What is less well-known is how to create representative samples and select cases to make credible, generalizable causal claims. We introduce some helpful sampling and case selection techniques in the paragraphs that follow.

A.    Sampling

Through sampling, researchers gather a subset of units from which they can make inferences about a broader population. Sampling techniques are useful for scholars pursuing doctrinal projects because the credibility of a generalization about doctrine depends on the representativeness of chosen examples. Sampling also holds important advantages for scholars pursuing causal arguments because it helps eliminate alternative explanations of the outcome. Below, we start with some general considerations about carefully sampling legal cases. We then present two particularly useful sampling techniques: random sampling and theoretically informed sampling. We discuss random sampling to dispel the assumption that it is too complicated to use in qualitative research. We present theoretically informed sampling because it allows scholars who work with few cases to make valid inferences.

Careful sampling requires scholars to clearly define the scope of their generalizations and the population to which their inferences apply. To see careful sampling in practice, we turn to Multiple Disadvantages: An Empirical Test of Intersectionality Theory in EEO Litigation . 22 Professors Rachel Best, Lauren Edelman, Linda Krieger, and Scott Eliason sample judicial opinions in equal employment opportunity cases in US federal courts to argue that antidiscrimination lawsuits provide the least protection for plaintiffs with multiple social disadvantages. 23 Plaintiffs who allege discrimination based on multiple traits, such as race and gender, are only half as likely to win their cases as other plaintiffs. 24

Careful sampling is critical in making this claim persuasive. First, the authors select the appropriate unit in which to test their theory: federal circuit and district court cases. 25 Circuit decisions establish precedent, while district courts handle a substantial number of discrimination cases and are thus “the primary federal locale for civil rights dispute resolution.” 26 If the authors had used Supreme Court cases as their unit of analysis, it would have been harder to assess whether plaintiff characteristics influence judicial rulings. Supreme Court cases are idiosyncratic; they often involve novel issues and particularly motivated parties. The authors could not draw valid general inferences from these cases.

Second, the authors clearly explain their sample’s limitations and define the scope of their inferences. The authors randomly sampled from relevant district and circuit court opinions available on Westlaw. 27 The authors emphasize that they could not include disputes that were resolved before reaching the courts or court opinions that were never published. 28 By defining the limits of their sample, the authors strengthen the plausibility of their inferences.

1.   Random sampling and systematic sampling.

Random sampling is widely used in the social sciences. Random sampling involves selecting subjects from a larger population by chance; each subject has equal probability of being selected. Random sampling has distinct advantages because it eliminates the possibility that the characteristics of selected units influence the outcome. This technique allows scholars with limited information about the universe of cases to draw generalizations efficiently.

Random sampling is critical to Best and her colleagues’ ability to make a general claim about plaintiffs’ success in antidiscrimination lawsuits. The authors collected all relevant district and circuit court opinions between 1965 and 1999 available on Westlaw, from which they randomly chose 2 percent. 29 Each district court opinion has unique characteristics that could influence its outcome; moreover, the authors do not possess anywhere near complete knowledge about every district court case. Random sampling allows the authors to make valid generalizations to all published district and circuit court cases despite these challenges.

A related technique—systematic sampling—can also produce credible generalizations. Systematic sampling involves randomly choosing a starting point and then selecting cases based on a fixed interval. 30 For example, for his book Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire , Professor Paul Halliday creates a systematic sample of all uses of the writ of habeas corpus issued by the courts of the King’s Bench from 1500 to 1800. 31 Starting in 1502, Halliday chooses petitions filed in every fourth year until 1798. 32 Creating this systematic sample allows Halliday to identify common case characteristics and make generalizations about how people approached law. 33 Systematic sampling also allows scholars to correlate outcomes to variables; this is important for Halliday, who “correlat[es] outcomes to . . . the wrongs for which prisoners were held and the jurisdictions that ordered confinement.” 34

Random sampling has an important limitation: it requires the researcher to select a relatively large number of cases. We turn next to theoretically informed sampling, which is more appropriate for studying smaller numbers of cases.

2.  Theoretically informed sampling.

Theoretically informed sampling holds distinct advantages for producing causal claims and credible generalizations with a small number of cases. First, the researcher identifies theoretically important characteristics that could influence the outcome. The researcher then sorts cases into categories defined by these characteristics and selects cases from each category. 35

For example, if a researcher was interested in treaty compliance, she would begin by identifying state characteristics that could delay compliance, such as limited bureaucratic capacity, poverty, or federalism. The researcher would then create categories defined by different combinations of these variables (for example, a wealthy federal state with high bureaucratic capacity) and sort states into each category. She would then select cases from each category, either randomly or based on practical and theoretical concerns. For example, because US treaty ratification behavior is very different from that of other wealthy federal states with high bureaucratic capacity, the researcher might want to include additional wealthy federal states. Ultimately, the researcher should “select[ ] a manageable number of cases that are diverse in terms of theoretically important traits.” 36

Theoretically informed sampling is more difficult to carry out than random sampling and more likely to lead the researcher to introduce bias into the selection process. Despite these drawbacks, theoretically informed sampling has distinct advantages over random sampling for scholars working with a small number of cases. Random sampling has poor small-sample properties: the chances that a researcher who randomly selects five countries will end up with five developing countries, or five agricultural economies, rather than five diverse states, are surprisingly high. Scholars cannot then make valid generalizations because the cases selected have particular, shared characteristics. 37

We could not locate exemplary uses of theoretically informed sampling in the legal literature. This makes our description more challenging, yet more likely to be useful. Below is an example that illustrates some of the steps outlined above, but that has important limitations. In Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America , Professors Robert Nelson and William Bridges investigate “wage differences between jobs held primarily by women and those held primarily by men within the same organization. ” 38 Al­though relevant literature argues that market principles produce these differences, Nelson and Bridges argue that organizational processes cause pay differences between typically “male” and “female” jobs. 39 Undergirding this argument are four case studies of gender discrimination lawsuits. 40

The authors select these cases to capture theoretically important variation across lawsuits. 41 The authors define the universe of cases, which includes defendant organizations large enough to have sufficiently differentiated occupations, internal labor markets, and bureaucratic personnel systems. 42 Within these parameters, the authors identify firm characteristics that might influence their outcome of interest, development of gender inequality. The potentially influential characteristics include whether organizations are public or private and the proportion of the workforce with firm-specific skills. 43 After creating four categories (for example, public companies requiring firm-specific skills), the authors select cases from each category according to practical considerations, namely, whether evidence was accessible. 44 Essentially, the authors select cases based on the values of potentially influential variables because it allows the authors to effectively evaluate whether and how organization type and skill requirements influence the outcome. Because the authors demonstrate that these other variables do not fully account for the patterns they observe, it strengthens their argument that their independent variable of interest is driving the outcome. As such, by using theoretically informed sampling, researchers can use few cases to assess their independent variable’s effect on the outcome.

Despite their use of theoretically informed sampling, the authors’ selection process raises important questions. For example, they examine only organizations sued for gender discrimination; these organizations may have especially egregious practices, and thus may be unrepresentative. 45 The authors try to alleviate this concern by, among other things, comparing employment numbers to similarly sized firms and including statements from employers that the firms sued were not unusual. 46

B.    Case Selection Techniques

While sampling techniques strengthen generalizations about the prevalence of certain population characteristics, case selection techniques are used to make structured and focused comparisons across cases, strengthening causal claims. We describe several case selection techniques below.

1.   Most difficult case design.

Selecting cases in which one’s theory is least likely to hold true can offer strong theoretical leverage. These cases, called “least-likely” cases, 47 undergird most difficult case design. If a researcher demonstrates that her theory holds true in an unlikely case, the argument is likely to hold in a broader range of cases. 48 In The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? , Professor Gerald Rosenberg uses two prominent US Supreme Court cases, Roe and Brown , to argue that the US Supreme Court’s influence on public policy is limited. 49

Using a least-likely case selection strategy is particularly effective for increasing the causal strength and generalizability of Rosenberg’s argument. The Supreme Court is more visible and influential than any other court in the American political system. 50 Roe and Brown are considered prime examples of a court producing significant social reform. 51 If Rosenberg’s theory holds true in the cases in which it is most likely to fail, it is plausible that his hypothesis could hold true in other, “easier” cases. If Rosenberg had instead chosen a case from a lower court believed to have little impact on social reform, his claim would have been far less plausible, and would have generated far less interest.

2.   Most similar case design.

In most similar case selection, the researcher chooses cases that have similar values on theoretically important characteristics, but differ on the independent variable of interest. 52 This allows the researcher to “hold constant” the other characteristics’ effects. 53 In Judicial Comparativism and Judicial Diplomacy , Professor David Law uses a most similar case design to explore why some courts use foreign law more than others. 54 Law hypothesizes that a court’s institutional capacity to learn about foreign law, and the emphasis a legal education system places on foreign law, shapes a court’s use of foreign law. 55        

Law selects the Japanese Supreme Court, the Korean Constitutional Court, and the Taiwanese Constitutional Court because they share characteristics that potentially explain judicial engagement in comparativism. 56 These countries are geographically adjacent, are democratic, share security and economic alliances with the United States, train judges similarly, have German-influenced civil law systems, have comparable popular attitudes toward comparativism, and share welcoming attitudes toward foreign law. 57

Despite their similarities, these courts differ on the outcome and explanatory variables of interest, namely, the court’s use of foreign law, the court’s institutional capacity for comparativism, and the use of comparativism in legal education. The use of foreign law by Japan’s highest court is minimal relative to Korea’s Constitutional Court, which draws on foreign law in a majority of cases, 58 and to Taiwan’s Constitutional Court, which consults foreign constitutional materials almost automatically. 59 While neither the Japanese justices nor their clerks conduct foreign legal research routinely, 60 the Korean Court has extensive foreign law research mechanisms, including a research institute for comparative constitutional scholarship. 61 Moreover, each country’s legal education system emphasizes comparativism differently. In top South Korean and Taiwanese universities, all constitutional law professors studied law abroad, compared to 25 percent to 66 percent in top Japanese universities. 62 While law professors regularly work for the Korean Constitutional Court 63 and a majority of the Taiwanese Constitutional Court justices are former legal professors, Japanese professors rarely hold seats on Japan’s Supreme Court. 64 By using most similar case design, Law effectively isolates important differences between the countries at issue, demonstrating how the highlighted differences influence judicial usage of foreign law. 65

3.   Variants on most similar case design.

Variants on most similar case design have distinct advantages for assessing claims that are of particular interest to legal scholars, such as whether particular legal devices are necessary or sufficient to produce an outcome of interest. For example, many legal scholars want to know whether particular legal rules are essential for well-functioning markets, effective political participation, or robust environmental protection. Similarly, many legal scholars wonder whether adopting similar laws (for example, a model code) in different jurisdictions will result in largely similar outcomes.

In Private Enforcement of Corporate Law: An Empirical Comparison of the United Kingdom and the United States , Professors John Armour, Bernard Black, Brian Cheffins, and Richard Nolan use a variation of most similar case design to assess whether formal private enforcement of corporate law is necessary for strong securities markets. 66 The authors select the United States and the United Kingdom because they share similar values on important characteristics. 67 “Both are common-law jurisdictions with strong judiciaries, low levels of government corruption, [ ] highly developed stock markets,” liquid securities markets, and many publicly traded firms. 68

The authors argue that, “[i]f private enforcement is [indeed] essential for robust stock markets,” they should observe “vigorous private enforcement of corporate law in both” countries, as these countries are otherwise similar in relevant respects. 69 The rate of private enforcement, however, drastically differs. The United States possesses a relatively high frequency of suits brought against directors of public companies. These suits are almost nonexistent in the United Kingdom. 70 By selecting cases that share otherwise-similar characteristics and outcomes, Armour and his coauthors trace back from the outcome and determine if the development of strong stock markets depends crucially on the private enforcement of corporate law. By showing that, contrary to expectations, private enforcement is not present in both cases, the authors effectively eliminate this as an essential precondition for strong securities markets.

Variations of most similar case design are also useful for legal scholars evaluating whether similar legal frameworks are used in the same way, or produce similar effects, across contexts. In How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters , Professor Shauhin Talesh examines why California and Vermont consumers receive different protections despite the fact that these states have nearly identical automobile consumer protection laws, or “lemon laws.” 71

Starting with nearly identical lemon laws, Talesh identifies differences between the contexts that could influence the implementation of these laws. Talesh finds that California and Vermont vary in terms of public and private control of dispute resolution structures. 72 In California, disputes are resolved in forums funded by automobile manufacturers but operated by external third-party organizations. 73 In Vermont, consumer disputes are resolved in a state-operated dispute resolution structure. 74 These dispute resolution structures filter business and consumer preferences differently, giving similar lemon laws distinct meanings. California’s managerial-justice adjudicatory model stresses business values of efficiency and managerial discretion. Vermont, by contrast, uses a collaborative justice model that reflects consumer values. 75

It is not only similarly structured laws, but also identical words, that are interpreted in very different ways. For example, both Vermont and California emphasize impartiality and neutrality in the fact-finding process; however, these words’ meanings differ across states. In California, arbitrators who actively investigate facts “compromise” impartiality and neutrality, while Vermont arbitrators must actively investigate facts to establish impartiality and neutrality. 76 This distinction leads California arbitrators to provide advantages for businesses, while Vermont arbitrators favor consumers. 77 Ultimately, by selecting cases with similar laws yet different outcomes, Talesh effectively establishes the critical role of varied implementation. 78

4.   Most different case design.

In most different case design, researchers select cases that differ on all relevant characteristics except the explanatory variable and outcome. 79 As such, most different case designs can suggest that the same variable produces the same effect across extremely different contexts. In The Euro-Crisis and the Courts: Judicial Review and the Political Process in Comparative Perspective , Professor Federico Fabbrini argues that, in response to the European debt crisis (the Euro-crisis) and new legal architecture of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), European courts have increased their involvement in the fiscal domain. 80

Fabbrini compares high court judicial decisions in Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, and Portugal, highlighting that these five member states represent the very diverse political, economic, and legal conditions that characterize the European Union (EU). 81 These countries vary dramatically: not only in size, wealth, and culture, but also in terms of the length of their EU membership and the power available to their supreme courts to review legislation. 82

Drawing from post-Euro-crisis court rulings, Fabbrini identifies a common cause of this increasingly high degree of judicial intervention in fiscal and economic affairs: EU member states’ intergovernmental management of the Euro-crisis. 83 As the dominant decision-making bodies, EU member states’ executive branches reformed the EMU architecture via international agreements, allowing courts to influence fiscal reform. 84 By using most different case logic, Fabbrini emphasizes the common cause of the increase in judicial involvement in economic affairs, thereby increasing the credibility and generalizability of his argument. However, most different case design has important limitations: when selected cases share more than one relevant similarity, this technique cannot, on its own, help the researcher distinguish between them. More generally, qualitative work requires that case selection be combined with within-case analysis, to which we turn next.

III.  Process Tracing: Developing Multiple Empirical Implications

After imagining alternative plausible outcomes and selecting cases, qualitatively oriented scholars trace the events prior to the outcome, parsing their theory into logically interconnected propositions that explain why the outcome occurred. If a legal scholar attributes an outcome to a particular cause, it is reasonable to think that this cause would produce other “traces,” or implications. Using available evidence, this scholar can see whether these expected implications actually occurred, thereby strengthening (or weakening) her explanation of the outcome. Additionally, scholars can weigh the plausibility of these implications against alternative explanations of the outcome. 85

The logic of process tracing should not be unfamiliar to lawyers; similar logic is used to assemble evidence in individual cases. In process tracing, scholars form multiple hypotheses about what caused an outcome, identify implications of each hypothesis, and weigh the hypotheses against available evidence. Similarly, to link a suspect to a crime, a prosecutor identifies a motive and develops a theory connecting a suspect’s motive to the time, place, and method of the crime. The prosecutor examines whether the evidence is more consistent with her theory or alternative theories. Evidence will vary in probative value; for example, eyewitness testimony might be less definitive than DNA evidence. 86 Although lawyers “process trace” when composing legal briefs and establishing narrow causal propositions, legal scholars do not use this logic systematically in law review writing. That is, in brief writing, lawyers often assess how diverse facts contribute to their legal arguments, but in academic writing, we often see less effort spent to collect and assess key facts that would make theoretical propositions plausible.

After developing a theoretical explanation of the outcome, scholars using process tracing must assess how diagnostic evidence increases or decreases the probability that this explanation is true. These pieces of diagnostic evidence are called causal process observations (CPOs) because they elucidate the broader causal mechanism linking the variables. 87 These pieces of evidence differ from the independent observations used in statistical analyses; they do not add breadth but depth, and are logically connected, rather than independent of one another. Different types of CPOs have varying probative value. In Professor David Collier’s language, “doubly decisive” evidence and “smoking gun” evidence have high probative value: doubly decisive evidence supports one theory and discredits alternatives, while smoking gun evidence supports one theory but does not speak to alternatives. 88 In contrast, “straw-in-the-wind” evidence and “hoop” evidence are only mildly helpful. 89

Below we provide two applications of process tracing to show how it can assess different types of causal arguments using various legal sources. We distinguish theoretically between (a) testing a theory with multiple empirical implications connected chronologically, and (b) testing a particular type of chronological connection common in legal scholarship—path-dependent processes 90 —in which early events have unusually large consequences later on.

A.    Process Tracing When Observations Are Linked Temporally

Researchers can effectively use process tracing to evaluate theories with chronologically connected empirical implications. To do so, the researcher breaks down her explanation of an outcome into various sequential, causal propositions, and evaluates these propositions against temporally interlinked observations. In The Strength of a Weak Agency , Professors Nicholas Pedriana and Robin Stryker explain how social movement pressure can expand the capacity of an agency with a small staff, limited budget, and limited jurisdiction. 91 Specifically, they highlight how the NAACP and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) pressured the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to aggressively interpret Title VII, 92 thereby expanding the agency’s powers. 93 While political leaders and lawyers initially understood Title VII as prohibiting only intentional discrimination, social movement pressure forced an aggressive EEOC litigation strategy, culminating in Griggs v Duke Power Co , 94 which prohibited unintentional discrimination. 95

Pedriana and Stryker’s first proposition involves social movements flooding the EEOC with complaints to demonstrate that the agency’s existing resources and capacity were insufficient. 96 Next, early EEOC leaders disagreed about expanding the agency’s mission, leading the EEOC to pursue interpretations the agency’s leaders understood as very aggressive. 97 This set of propositions has relatively distinctive empirical implications, and helps Pedriana and Stryker distinguish their theory from alternative explanations. One possible alternative is that EEOC leadership, seeking to increase their powers, would have pursued an expansive mandate even without social movement pressure. 98 Or perhaps the premise that the EEOC had an initial narrow mandate is incorrect. 99 Alternatively, perhaps the Supreme Court would have decided Griggs similarly regardless of social movement pressure and EEOC advocacy. 100

To reject the alternative explanation that power-seeking bureaucrats drove EEOC expansion, the authors highlight that the first EEOC chairman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr, was yachting during congressional hearings regarding appropriations for his agency. 101 Roosevelt focused on public relations because he wanted to run for governor of New York, leaving EEOC senior staff unsure about the agency’s central objectives and how to accomplish them. 102

To evaluate their proposition that social movements exposed the EEOC’s ineffectiveness, thereby pressuring the EEOC to adopt an aggressive strategy, Pedriana and Stryker note that the NAACP and the LDF filed mass complaints in the months after Title VII came into force. 103 Jack Greenberg, director of the LDF, publicly stated that “the best way to get it amended [Title VII] is to show it doesn’t work.” 104 Throughout its initial years, the EEOC was continually handling at least four times the number of complaints it was budgeted to handle due to the unrelenting tide of complaints from the LDF and the NAACP. 105 The volume of complaints and social movement leaders’ statements are, in the language of Collier’s classification structure, “smoking gun” evidence. Given this evidence, it would be surprising if the alternate explanation—that social movement pressure had no effect on the EEOC—were true.

To evaluate their proposition that there was a push to expand the EEOC’s mandate, Pedriana and Stryker show that EEOC leadership initially disagreed over whether Title VII covered intentional discrimination and discriminatory effects. 106 Pedriana and Stryker first follow steps that legal scholars normally use: they draw from the text of Title VII, the legislative history of the statute, and statements made by the nonpartisan Bureau of National Affairs. 107 Perhaps recognizing the potential for strategic use of the legislative record, Pedriana and Stryker also draw on EEOC internal communications and staff statements. 108 Although the EEOC later (successfully) challenged employment tests as discriminatory based on statistical evidence of their impact on minority applicants, the EEOC’s general counsel initially stated that “if [the EEOC testing guidelines are] intended as a legal position as to what is meant by professionally developed tests then it is very wide off the mark . . . I cannot conceive arguing this position before a District judge .” 109 Additionally, EEOC Executive Director Herman Edelsberg said that incorporating disparate impact into the guidelines would make them “too ambitious to be a legal document.” 110 Again, this is smoking gun evidence; it would be very surprising if the alternate explanation—that the EEOC’s mandate was unquestionably broad—were true given this evidence.

Pedriana and Stryker demonstrate how legal scholars can develop temporally linked propositions with distinctive empirical signatures, and how evaluating these propositions against available evidence can substantially increase their persuasiveness. We now turn to path-dependent causal claims and explain how best to substantiate them.

B.    Process Tracing When Observations Are Path Dependent

Legal scholars commonly make claims about path depen­dence, processes in which early events have large consequences later on. A HeinOnline search showed that 2,662 articles mentioned path dependence explicitly from 2000 to 2015. Legal interpretation techniques, including rules governing precedents, analogical reasoning, and conventions about interpreting similar language systematically, make early judicial decisions crucial. Below we explain why process tracing can help develop path-dependent claims. 111

What distinguishes path dependence from other claims about event sequence? First, in path-dependent processes, positive feedback loops make early events have bigger consequences than later ones. 112 Second, path-dependent processes have critical junctures, when one option is picked among many; after this choice, it becomes increasingly difficult to return to alternatives. 113 The adoption of the QWERTY keyboard effectively illustrates path dependence. While countless ways of arranging letters on a keyboard were initially possible, once the QWERTY sequence was chosen and adopted by millions of typists, it became nearly impossible to switch to another, more efficient arrangement.

Process-tracing techniques are very useful for identifying feedback loops and critical junctures. 114 In The Lost Promise of Civil Rights , Professor Risa Goluboff explains how the NAACP adopted the now-dominant civil rights litigation strategy and why it concentrated on government-imposed segregation rather than challenging abysmal labor conditions, an alternate strategy championed by the Civil Rights Section (CRS) of the Justice Department. 115 Goluboff theorizes that early legal victories encouraged similar litigation and subsequent victories, creating a positive feedback loop that institutionalized this litigation strategy, making alternative litigation strategies much harder to pursue later on. 116

To establish that an event constitutes a critical juncture, a scholar must demonstrate that there were at least two alternatives available and that, after one alternative was chosen, it became increasingly difficult to return to the other option. Goluboff does this for key decisions in the 1930s and 1940s. 117 She also establishes that, once the NAACP chose its litigation strategy, choices about the cases it selected made it difficult, if not impossible, to change. Initially, the NAACP received both racial discrimination complaints from northern industrial workers and labor discrimination complaints from southern agricultural workers. 118 While the NAACP originally pursued both types of complaints, by the 1940s, the NAACP fashioned a legal strategy around the racial discrimination claims of industrial workers. 119 Multiple factors influenced this decision. The NAACP relied heavily on local counsel, and in the 1940s most black lawyers were in northern cities. 120 Additionally, the NAACP found that “sympathetic judges and amenable lawyers” were scarce in the south, making it “easier to win cases” in the north. 121

Perhaps the biggest critical juncture was the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown , which vindicated the NAACP’s legal strategy and established equal protection as the dominant civil rights lens. 122 Brown is perhaps the most significant US Supreme Court case; the antidiscrimination framework Brown and its progeny represent is common in casebooks and taught across law schools nationally. 123 While establishing the antidiscrimination approach’s dominance is easy, it is challenging for legal scholars to imagine that an alternative vision was possible. Goluboff convincingly establishes this alternate vision in a number of ways. Goluboff develops a plausible, alternate legal vision championed by the CRS: raw legal material for an alternate vision of civil rights, namely, agricultural workers’ horrific complaints, was ample, 124 allowing the CRS to develop a conception of civil rights based on labor and economic discrimination. 125 Additionally, she highlights that the Supreme Court overturned its own precedents with unusual frequency throughout the 1930s and 1940s 126 and presents comments from prominent civil rights lawyers and casebooks exemplifying their perceptions of ambiguity in civil rights doctrine. 127 This is smoking gun evidence because it makes it highly unlikely that the Brown decision was inevitable.

Implications and Conclusions

In place of a conclusion, we speculate on an observation that transformed quantitative research. In a much-cited 1986 piece, Paul Holland argued that some questions can be answered much more easily than others. 128 For example, it is very difficult to ascertain why people commit crimes; however, we can more easily determine whether expanding the police force reduces crime rates. Statistical analysis, Holland argued, has distinct advantages for answering the second type of question, which focuses on measuring the effect of a given variable. 129 The ease and effectiveness with which statistical analyses can answer “effects-driven” questions have led this method and question type to dominate social science research. More and more, social scientists are asking answerable questions with quantitative methods; however, fewer reflect on whether these questions, while answerable, are interesting and contribute to our understanding of the world.

Legal scholars arguably face the opposite problem. Legal scholarship has no shortage of interesting questions. However, many of these critical questions are never answered; legal scholars rarely defend their preferred theories against plausible alternatives effectively. By showcasing a variety of methodological techniques that are well suited to the types of claims and evidence legal scholars typically work with, we hope to move closer to answering the critically important questions legal scholars pose.

• 16 Kristin Luker, Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-Glut 55 (Harvard 2008).
• 17 See Hendrik Hartog, Pigs and Positivism , 1985 Wis L Rev 899, 904–06.
• 18 Id at 905–06, 908–09.
• 19 Id at 912–13.
• 20 See id at 913, 935.
• 21 See Hartog, 1985 Wis L Rev at 912–15, 929–35 (cited in note 17).
• 22 See generally Rachel Kahn Best, et al, Multiple Disadvantages: An Empirical Test of Intersectionality Theory in EEO Litigation , 45 L & Society Rev 991 (2011).
• 23 Id at 999–1000, 1017–19.
• 24 Id at 1009 (noting that the employee wins a clear victory in 15 percent of cases with intersectional bases of discrimination, as opposed to 30 percent of cases with nonintersectional bases of discrimination).
• 25 Id at 999.
• 26 Best, et al, 45 L & Society Rev at 999 (cited in note 22).
• 27 Id at 999 & nn 4–5.
• 28 See id at 1000 & n 8.
• 29 Id at 999.
• 30 See, for example, Paul D. Halliday, Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire 28–29, 319 (Belknap 2010).
• 31 Id at 4.
• 32 Id at 319.
• 33 See id at 5.
• 34 Halliday, Habeas Corpus at 319 (cited in note 30).
• 35 See Sarah Curtis, et al, Approaches to Sampling and Case Selection in Qualitative Research: Examples in the Geography of Health , 50 Soc Sci & Med 1001, 1002 (2000) (discussing the theoretical framework for case selection).
• 36 Katerina Linos, How to Select and Develop International Law Case Studies: Lessons from Comparative Law and Comparative Politics , 109 Am J Intl L 475, 480 (2015).
• 37 See Jason Dietrich, The Effects of Sampling Strategies on the Small Sample Properties of the Logit Estimator , 32 J Applied Stat 543, 544 (2005) (“On average, simple random sampling yields a sample reflecting the true population distributions. . . . For smaller samples, however, there is an increased risk that the model cannot be estimated because of limited variation in either the dependent or independent variables.”).
• 38 Robert L. Nelson and William P. Bridges, Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America 2 (Cambridge 1999).
• 39 See id at 2–3.
• 40 Id at 102, 105–08.
• 41 Id at 102.
• 42 Nelson and Bridges, Legalizing Gender Inequality at 108 (cited in note 38).
• 44 This last step distinguishes theoretically informed sampling from stratified sampling. In stratified sampling, cases are picked at random within each stratum; in theoretically informed sampling, researchers select cases within each stratum. See id at 109–10.
• 45 Id at 112.
• 46 Nelson and Bridges, Legalizing Gender Inequality at 112–13 (cited in note 38).
• 47 Harry Eckstein, Case Study and Theory in Political Science , in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, eds, 7 Handbook of Political Science: Strategies of Inquiry 79, 119 (Addison-Wesley 1975). See also Jack S. Levy, Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference , 25 Conflict Mgmt & Peace Sci 1, 12 (2008).
• 48 See Levy, 25 Conflict Mgmt & Peace Sci at 12 (cited in note 47).
• 49 Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope at 420 (cited in note 5).
• 50 See id at 7.
• 51 Id at 8.
• 52 See Jason Seawright and John Gerring, Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options , 61 Polit Rsrch Q 294, 304 (2008).
• 53 For an in-depth description of most similar case selection, see Ran Hirschl, The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law , 53 Am J Comp L 125, 133–39 (2005).
• 54 See generally David S. Law, Judicial Comparativism and Judicial Diplomacy , 163 U Pa L Rev 927 (2015).
• 55 Id at 942.
• 56 Id at 942–43, 949–50.
• 57 Id at 950.
• 58 Law, 163 U Pa L Rev at 953, 962 (cited in note 54).
• 59 See id at 977.
• 60 Id at 953–54.
• 61 Id at 972–73, 1033.
• 62 Law, 163 U Pa L Rev at 1035 (cited in note 54).
• 63 See id at 964, 970–71.
• 64 Id at 1012–13.
• 65 Id at 949–52.
• 66 See generally John Armour, et al, Private Enforcement of Corporate Law: An Empirical Comparison of the United Kingdom and the United States , 6 J Empirical Legal Stud 687 (2009).
• 67 See id at 692.
• 68 Id at 689, 692 (citation omitted).
• 69 Id at 692.
• 70 Armour, et al, 6 J Empirical Legal Stud at 690 (cited in note 66).
• 71 See generally Shauhin A. Talesh, How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters: An Organizational Analysis of Dispute Resolution Structures and Consumer Lemon Laws , 46 L & Society Rev 463 (2012).
• 72 Id at 466–68.
• 73 Id at 464.
• 74 Id at 464–65.
• 75 Talesh, 46 L & Society Rev at 474 (cited in note 71).
• 76 See id at 478–80.
• 77 See id at 478.
• 78 Id at 483–89.
• 79 See Seawright and Gerring, 61 Polit Rsrch Q at 306 (cited in note 52).
• 80 Federico Fabbrini, The Euro-Crisis and the Courts: Judicial Review and the Political Process in Comparative Perspective , 32 Berkeley J Intl L 64, 65 (2014).
• 81 See id at 75–76.
• 83 Id at 65.
• 84 Fabbrini, 32 Berkeley J Intl L at 65 (cited in note 80).
• 85 See Lawrence B. Mohr, The Reliability of the Case Study as a Source of Information , 2 Advances Info Processing Orgs 65, 67–69 (1985).
• 86 However, for a critique of the reliability of DNA evidence, see generally Andrea Roth, Maryland v. King and the Wonderful, Horrible DNA Revolution in Law Enforcement , 11 Ohio St J Crim L 295 (2013).
• 87 David Collier, Understanding Process Tracing , 44 PS: Polit Sci & Polit 823, 826 (2011).
• 88 Id at 825.
• 89 “Straw-in-the-wind” evidence does not prove or disprove a theory, but suggests that its validity is more likely than it would otherwise be. “Hoop” evidence can disprove a theory but cannot independently establish its validity. Id.
• 90 For an excellent example of how to effectively use process tracing, see Tasha Fairfield, Going Where the Money Is: Strategies for Taxing Economic Elites in Unequal Democracies , 47 World Development 42, 46–51 (2013).
• 91 See generally Nicholas Pedriana and Robin Stryker, The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965–1971 , 110 Am J Sociology 709 (2004).
• 92 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub L No 88-352, 78 Stat 253, codified at 42 USC § 2000e et seq.
• 93 Pedriana and Stryker, 110 Am J Sociology at 710–11, 725–27 (cited in note 91).
• 94 401 US 424 (1971).
• 95 Id at 431 (holding that “[t]he Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation”).
• 96 Pedriana and Stryker, 110 Am J Sociology at 725 (cited in note 91).
• 97 See id at 721.
• 98 Id at 720.
• 99 See id at 729.
• 100 Pedriana and Stryker, 110 Am J Sociology at 739–40, 748 (cited in note 91).
• 101 Id at 721.
• 103 Id at 725.
• 104 Pedriana and Stryker, 110 Am J Sociology at 725 (cited in note 91) (brackets in original).
• 105 See id.
• 106 See id at 728–30.
• 107 See id at 723, 726.
• 108 See Pedriana and Stryker, 110 Am J Sociology at 723 (cited in note 91).
• 109 Id at 735 (brackets and ellipsis in original).
• 111 For another example of process tracing to establish path dependence, see generally Katerina Linos, Path Dependence in Discrimination Law: Employment Cases in the United States and the European Union , 35 Yale J Intl L 115 (2010).
• 112 See Paul Pierson, Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 94 Am Polit Sci Rev 251, 251–52 (2000).
• 113 James Mahoney, Path Dependence in Historical Sociology , 29 Theory & Society 507, 513 (2000).
• 114 See Giovanni Capoccia and R. Daniel Kelemen, The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism , 59 World Polit 341, 343, 358–59 (2007).
• 115 See Risa L. Goluboff, The Lost Promise of Civil Rights 175–76 (Harvard 2007).
• 116 See id at 217–37.
• 117 See id at 174–237.
• 118 See id at 81–82.  
• 119 See Goluboff, The Lost Promise at 197 (cited in note 115).
• 120 Id at 187.
• 122 See id at 238–70.
• 123 See, for example, Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 722–25 (Wolters Kluwer 4th ed 2011).
• 124 See Goluboff, The Lost Promise at 81–84, 175–76 (cited in note 115).
• 125 Id at 112–14 (“The CRS maintained its original commitment to the rights of labor and reworked, rather than rejected, labor rights into its new civil rights practice during the 1940s.”).
• 126 See id at 23.
• 127 Id at 111–12.
• 128 See generally Paul W. Holland, Statistics and Causal Inference , 81 J Am Stat Assn 945 (1986).
• 129 See id at 945–48.

Thanks to Jake Gersen, Todd Henderson, Daryl Levinson, Jens Ludwig, Richard McAdams, Tom Miles, Matthew Stephenson, David Strauss, Adrian Vermeule, Noah Zatz, and participants at a workshop at The University of Chicago Law School for helpful comments.

We are grateful to Susan Bandes, Elizabeth Foote, Jacob Gersen, Brian Leiter, Anup Malani, Richard McAdams, Elizabeth Mertz, Jonathan Nash, Eric Posner, Adam Samaha, Larry Solum, David Strauss, Noah Zatz, and participants in a work-inprogress lunch at The University of Chicago Law School for valuable comments. We are also grateful to the Chicago Judges Project, and in particular to Dean Saul Levmore, for relevant support.

We thank Eric Posner, Richard Posner, Peter Strauss, and Adrian Vermeule for helpful comments. We are also grateful to Rachael Dizard, Casey Fronk, Darius Horton, Matthew Johnson, Bryan Mulder, Brett Reynolds, Matthew Tokson, and Adam Wells for superb research assistance.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research

Patricia Leavy Independent Scholar Kennebunk, ME, USA

A newer edition of this book is available.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This handbook provides a broad introduction to qualitative research to those with little to no background in the subject while simultaneously providing substantive contributions to the field that will be of interest to even the most experienced researchers. The first two sections explore the history of qualitative research, ethical perspectives, and philosophical/theoretical approaches. The next three sections focus on the major methods of qualitative practice, as well as on newer approaches (such as arts-based research and internet research); area studies often excluded (such as museum studies and disaster studies); and mixed methods and participatory methods (such as community-based research). The next section covers key issues including data analysis, interpretation, writing, and assessment. The final section offers a commentary about politics and research and the move toward public scholarship. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research is intended for students of all levels, faculty, and researchers across the social sciences.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Open Choice

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik aspers.

1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

2 Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

3 Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Biographies

is professor of sociology at the Department of Sociology, Uppsala University and Universität St. Gallen. His main focus is economic sociology, and in particular, markets. He has published numerous articles and books, including Orderly Fashion (Princeton University Press 2010), Markets (Polity Press 2011) and Re-Imagining Economic Sociology (edited with N. Dodd, Oxford University Press 2015). His book Ethnographic Methods (in Swedish) has already gone through several editions.

is associate professor of sociology at the Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger. His research has been published in journals such as Social Psychology Quarterly, Sociological Theory, Teaching Sociology, and Music and Arts in Action. As an ethnographer he is working on a book on he social world of big-wave surfing.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .

Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .

• Åkerström M. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):10–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Alvesson M, Kärreman D. Qualitative research and theory development . Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.
• Atkinson P. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (3):1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Social Problems. 1966; 14 (3):239–247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Sociological work. Method and substance. New Brunswick: Transaction Books; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. The epistemology of qualitative research. In: Richard J, Anne C, Shweder RA, editors. Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker HS. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker H, Geer B, Hughes E, Strauss A. Boys in White, student culture in medical school. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1961. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berezin M. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):141–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .
• Biernacki R. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):173–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady H, Collier D, Seawright J. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In: Henry B, David C, editors. Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 2004. pp. 3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown AP. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research. 2010; 10 (2):229–248. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.
• Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidsson D. The myth of the subjective. In: Davidsson D, editor. Subjective, intersubjective, objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. pp. 39–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2003. pp. 1–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2005. pp. 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, editor. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esterberg KG. Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.
• Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.
• Fine GA, Hancock BH. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research. 2017; 17 (2):260–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine GA, Hallett T. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. 2014; 3 (2):188–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information. 2002; 41 (1):5–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flick U. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. 5. London: Edward Arnold; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society. 2010; 39 (6):593–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franzosi R. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology. 2016; 19 (1):137–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
• Gans H. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1999; 28 (5):540–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert N. Researching social life. 3. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaeser A. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 :207–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.
• Goertz G, Mahoney J. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goffman E. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1989; 18 (2):123–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin J, Horowitz R. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology. 2002; 25 (1):33–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.
• Hammersley M. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2007; 30 (3):287–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Hammersley M. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education. 2018; 13 (1):1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography . Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
• Hempel CG. Philosophy of the natural sciences. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood JC. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology. 2006; 34 (3):207–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• James W. Pragmatism. New York: Meredian Books; 1907. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jovanović G. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences. 2011; 24 (2):1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalof L, Dan A, Dietz T. Essentials of social research. London: Open University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz J. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research. 2015; 44 (1):108–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• King G, Keohane RO, Sidney S, Verba S. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. Designing social inquiry. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In: Lamont M, White P, editors. Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2004. pp. 91–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamont M, Swidler A. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology. 2014; 37 (2):153–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarsfeld P, Barton A. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In: Kendall P, editor. The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld. New York: Columbia University Press; 1982. pp. 239–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; 10.1177/0049124114554458.
• Lofland J, Lofland L. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lofland J, Snow DA, Anderson L, Lofland LH. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 4. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Long AF, Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2004; 7 (2):181–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg G. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.; 1951. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge; 1922. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manicas P. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marchel C, Owens S. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology. 2007; 10 (4):301–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre LJ. Need to know. Social science research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merton RK, Barber E. The travels and adventures of serendipity . A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannay D, Morgan M. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘ Qualitative Research. 2015; 15 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuman LW. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 2. Boston: Pearson Education; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin CC. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf
• Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).
• Schütz A. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seiffert H. Einführung in die Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Franke; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook. 2. London: SAGE Publications; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review. 2013; 9 (2):48–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small ML. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography. 2009; 10 (1):5–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
• Snow DA, Anderson L. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow DA, Morrill C. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1995; 24 (3):341–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. 14. Chicago: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.
• Swedberg R. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February. 1990; 3 (1):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmermans S, Tavory I. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (3):167–186. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trier-Bieniek A. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (6):630–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valsiner J. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information. 2000; 39 (1):99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

Legal Practice

Types of Legal Research

What do you mean by Legal Research?

Legal Research is the process of identifying and retrieving information necessary to support legal decision-making. It begins with an analysis of the facts of a problem and it concludes with the results of the investigation. Legal research skills are of great importance for lawyers to solve any legal case, regardless of area or type of practice. The most basic step in legal research is to find a noteworthy case governing the issues in question. As most legal researchers know, this is far more difficult than it sounds.

Whether you are a Lawyer, a paralegal, or a law student, it is essential that Legal research is done in an effective manner. This is where the methodology comes into play. Different cases must be approached in different ways and this is why it is important to know which type of legal research methodology is suitable for your case and helpful for your client.

Read Also: Here is the Importance of Legal Research in Legal Practice

Different Types of Legal Research

1) descriptive legal research.

Descriptive Legal research is defined as a research method that describes the characteristics of the population or phenomenon that is being studied. This methodology focuses more on the “what” of the research subject rather than the “why” of the research subject. In other words, descriptive legal research primarily focuses on the nature of a demographic segment, without focusing on “why” something happens. In other words, it is a description based which does not cover the “why” aspect of the research subject.

For example, a lawyer that wants to understand the crime trends among Mumbai will conduct a demographic survey of this region, gather population data and then conduct descriptive research on this demographic segment. The research will then give us the details on “what is the crime pattern of Mumbai?”, but not cover any investigative details on “why” the patterns exits. Because for the lawyer trying to understand these crimes patterns, for them, understanding the nature of their crimes is the objective of the study.

2) Quantitative research

Quantitative Legal Research is a characteristic of Descriptive Legal Research Methodology that attempts to collect quantifiable information to be used for statistical analysis of the population sample. It is a popular research tool that allows us to collect and describe the nature of the demographic segment. Quantitative Legal Research collects information from existing and potential data using sampling methods like online surveys, online polls, questionnaires, etc., the results of which can be depicted in numerical form. After careful understanding of these numbers, it is possible to predict the future and make changes to manage the situation.

An example of quantitative research is the survey conducted to understand the turnaround time of cases in the high court and how much time it takes from the time the case is filed until the judgment is passed. A complainant’s satisfaction survey template can be administered to ask questions like how much time did the process take, how often were they called to court, and other such questions.

3) Qualitative Legal Research

Qualitative Legal Research is a subjective form of research that relies on the analysis of controlled observations of the legal researcher. In qualitative research, data is obtained from a relatively small group of subjects. Data is not analyzed with statistical techniques. Usually, narrative data is collected in qualitative research.

Qualitative research can be adopted as a method to study people or systems by interacting with and observing the subjects regularly. The various methods used for collecting data in qualitative research are grounded theory practice, narratology, storytelling, and ethnography.

Grounded theory practice: It is research grounded in the observations or data from which it was developed. Various data sources used in grounded theory are quantitative data, review of records, interviews, observation, and surveys.

Narratology: It refers to the theory and study of narrative and narrative structure. It also shows the way in which the result affects the researcher’s perception.

Storytelling: This is a method by which events are recounted in the form of a story. The method is generally used in the field of organization and management studies.

Ethnography- Ethnography is used for investigating cultures by collecting and describing data intend to help the development of a theory.

4) Analytical Legal Research

Analytical Legal Research is a style of qualitative inquiry. It is a specific type of research that involves critical thinking skills and the evaluation of facts and information relative to the research being conducted. Lawyers often use an analytical approach to their legal research to find the most relevant information. From analytical research, a person finds out critical details to add new ideas to the material being produced.

For example, examining the fluctuations of Crime Rates of India between 2010-2020 is an example of descriptive research; while explaining why and how the Crime rates spiked over time is an example of analytical research.

5) Applied Legal Research

Applied Legal Research is a methodology used to find a solution to a pressing practical problem at hand. It is a straightforward practical approach to the case you are handling. It involves doing full-fledged research on a specific area of law followed by gathering information on all technical legal rules and principles applied and forming an opinion on the prospects for the client in the scenario.

For Example, if your client is an employee of an organization and is fighting against wrongful termination of contract then the practical approach to this would be by carefully evaluating the company policies and finding company policies that were violated and to suing the organization based on those arguments.

6) Pure Legal Research

Pure legal research is also known as basic Legal Research usually focuses on generalization and formulation of a theory. The aim of this type of research methodology is to broaden the understanding of a particular field of investigation.  It is a more general form of approach to the case you are handling. The researcher does not focus on the practical utility

For Example, researchers might conduct basic research on illiteracy leads to unemployment. The results of these theoretical explorations might lead to further studies designed to solve specific problems of unemployment.

7) Conceptual Legal Research

Conceptual Legal Research is defined as a methodology wherein research is conducted by observing and analyzing already present information on a given topic. Conceptual research doesn’t involve conducting any practical experiments. It is related to abstract concepts or ideas.

They are generally resorted to by the philosophers and thinkers to develop new concepts or reinterpret the existing concepts but has also proven to be a useful methodology for legal purposes.

For example, many of our ancient laws were influenced by the British Rule. Only later did we improve upon many laws and created new and simplified laws after our Independence. So another way to think of this type of research would be to observe, come up with a concept or theories aligned with previous theories to hopefully derive new theories.

8) Empirical Legal Research

Empirical Legal Research describes how to investigate the roles of legislation, regulation, legal policies, and other legal arrangements at play in society. It acts as a guide to paralegals, lawyers, and law students on how to do empirical legal research, covering history, methods, evidence, growth of knowledge, and links with normativity. This multidisciplinary approach combines insights and approaches from different social sciences, evaluation studies, Big Data analytics, and empirically informed ethics.

For example, Pharmaceutical companies use empirical research to try out a specific drug on controlled groups or random groups to study the effect and cause.

Read Also – How to Do Legal Research?

Other Major Methods of Legal Research.

1) doctrinal legal research.

The central question of inquiry here is ‘what is the law?’ on a particular issue. It is concerned with finding the law, rigorously analyzing it and coming up with logical reasoning behind it. Therefore, it immensely contributes to the continuity, consistency, and certainty of law. The basic information can be found in the statutory material i.e.

primary sources as well in the secondary sources. However, the research has its own limitations, it is subjective, that is limited to the perception of the researcher, away from the actual working of the law, devoid of factors that lie outside the boundaries of the law, and fails to focus on the actual practice of the courts.

2) Non-doctrinal Legal Research

It is also known as socio-legal research and it looks into how the law and legal institutions mold and affects society. It employs methods taken from other disciplines in order to generate empirical data to answer the questions.

3)  Comparative Legal Research

This involves a comparison of legal doctrines, legislations, and foreign laws. It highlights the cultural and social character of law and how does it act in different settings. So it is useful in developing and amending, and modifying the law. But a

the cautious approach has to be taken in blindly accepting the law of another social setting as a base because it might not act in the same manner in a different setting.

Read Also – What is Doctrinal and Non-Doctrinal Legal Research?

Legal research is a systematic understanding of the law while keeping in mind it’s advancements. Law usually acts within the society and they both have an impact on each other. Each kind of research methodology has its own value. However, while undertaking research a researcher might face some hurdles but they can be avoided if he/she properly plans the research process.

Legodesk is the best cloud-based  legal case management software  for law professionals. It also helps Clients find a lawyer. Interested to know more?  Sign Up  today to start your free trial or  contact us  if you have any queries.

Try our Debt Resolution solutions today       Request a Demo

Very useful and compact information, thank you.

Very useful information 👍

I found this information to be stimulating and informative.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the different types of legal research. It’s a great resource for law students and professionals alike!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *