Tools of Data Collection in Qualitative Research:

Systematic Observation, Focus Group discussion,

In Depth Interview, Case Study

Introduction
According to Merriam, “Qualitative researchers are interested in
understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make
sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world.” According to
Denzin and Lincoln, “Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the
observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that
makes the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the
world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews,
conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level,
qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world.
This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the
meanings people bring to them.”

According to Nkwi, Nyamongo, and Ryan, “Qualitative research

involves any research that uses data that do not indicate ordinal values.” For
these authors, the defining criterion is the type of data generated and/or used. In
short, qualitative research involves collecting and/or working with text, images,
or sounds. An outcome-oriented definition such as that proposed by Nkwi et al.
avoids generalizations and the unnecessary dichotomous positioning of
qualitative research with respect to its quantitative counterpart. It allows for the
inclusion of many different kinds of data collection and analysis techniques, as
well as the diversity of theoretical and epistemological frame-works that are
associated with qualitative research.
Through this paper we intend to make a brief study on some selected
tools of data collection in qualitative research method viz. Systematic
observation, focus group discussion, in depth interview and case study.

1. SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION
Observation entails the systematic noting and recording of events,
behaviors, and artifacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study. The
observational record is frequently referred to as field notes—detailed,
nonjudgmental, concrete descriptions of what has been observed. For studies
relying exclusively on observation, the researcher makes no special effort to
have a particular role in the setting; to be tolerated as an unobtrusive observer
is enough. Classroom studies are one example of observation, often found in
education, in which the researcher documents and describes actions and
interactions that are complex: what they mean can only be inferred without
other sources of information. This method assumes that behavior is purposeful
and expressive of deeper values and beliefs. Observation can range from a
highly structured, detailed notation of behavior structured by checklists to a
more holistic description of events and behavior.
In the early stages of qualitative inquiry, the researcher typically enters
the setting with broad areas of interest but without predetermined categories or
strict observational checklists. In this way, the researcher is able to discover the
recurring patterns of behavior and relationships. After these patterns are
identified and described through early analysis of field notes, checklists
become more appropriate and context-sensitive. Focused observation then is
used at later stages of the study, usually to see, for example, if analytic themes
explain behavior and relationships over a long time or in a variety of
settings.
Observation is a fundamental and highly important method in all
qualitative inquiry. It is used to discover complex interactions in natural social
settings. Even in studies using in-depth interviews, observation plays an
important role as the researcher notes the interviewee’s body language and
affect in addition to her words. It is, however, a method that requires a great
deal of the researcher. Discomfort, uncomfortable ethical dilemmas and even
danger, the difficulty of managing a relatively unobtrusive role, and the
challenge of identifying the big picture while finely observing huge amounts of
fast-moving and complex behavior are just a few of the challenges.
Whether a researcher is simply observing from afar or finding a
participant-observer role in the setting, some contexts may present dangers.
Street ethnography is a term that describes research settings which can be
dangerous, either physically or emotionally, such as working with the police,
drug users, cults, and situations in which political or social tensions may erupt
into violence.
Observations involve more than just “hanging out.” Planful and self-
aware observers use observation systematically. At the proposal stage, the
researcher should describe the purpose of the observing, the phase of the study
in which it is likely to be most fruitful, and the use of field notes to respond to
the research questions. Field notes are not scribbles. The proposal writer should
have explicit note-organizing and note-management strategies.

Participant Observation
Developed primarily from cultural anthropology and qualitative sociology,
participant observation is both an overall approach to inquiry and a data-
gathering method. To some degree, it is an essential element of all qualitative
studies. As its name suggests, participant observation demands firsthand
involvement in the social world chosen for study. Immersion in the setting
permits the researcher to hear, to see, and to begin to experience reality as the
participants do.Ideally, the researcher spends a considerable amount of time in
the setting, learning about daily life there. This immersion offers the researcher
the opportunity to learn directly from his own experience. Personal reflections
are integral to the emerging analysis of a cultural group, because they provide
the researcher with new vantage points and with opportunities to
make the strange familiar and the familiar strange.

This method for gathering data is basic to all qualitative studies and
forces a consideration of the role or stance of the researcher as a participant
observer. At the proposal stage, it is helpful to elaborate on the planned extent
of participation: what the nature of that involvement is likely to be, how much
will be revealed about the study’s purpose to the people in the setting, how
intensively the researcher will be present, how focused the participation will
be, and how ethical dilemmas will be managed. The researcher should be
specific as to how his participation will inform the research questions.

2. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

A focus group discussion (FGD) is a good way to gather together
people from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss a specific topic of
interest. The group of participants is guided by a moderator (or group
facilitator) who introduces topics for discussion and helps the group to
participate in a lively and natural discussion amongst themselves. The strength
of FGD relies on allowing the participants to agree or disagree with each other
so that it provides an insight into how a group thinks about an issue, about the
range of opinion and ideas, and the inconsistencies and variation that exists in a
particular community in terms of beliefs and their experiences and practices.

FGDs can be used to explore the meanings of survey findings that

cannot be explained statistically, the range of opinions/views on a topic of
interest and to collect a wide variety of local terminology. In bridging research
and policy, FGD can be useful in providing an insight into different opinions
among different parties involved in the change process, thus enabling the
process to be managed more smoothly. It is also a good method to employ prior
to designing questionnaires.

Outline of the Process

FGD sessions need to be prepared carefully through identifying the main
objective(s) of the meeting, developing key questions, developing an agenda,
and planning how to record the session. The next step is to identify and invite
suitable discussion participants; the ideal number is between six and eight. The
crucial element of FGD is the facilitation. Some important points to bear in
mind in facilitating FGDs are to ensure even participation, careful wording of
the key questions, maintaining a neutral attitude and appearance, and
summarising the session to reflect the opinions evenly and fairly. A detailed
report should be prepared after the session is finished. Any observations during
the session should be noted and included in the report. While discussion is
constrained, the written format can help with reporting on the discussion.

Guidelines in conducting focus group discussion (FGD)

1. The FGD is an opportunity for the research team to listen and learn, and not
to lecture or provide team members’ interpretation of the local biophysical and
social system.
2. The team members agree on various task assignments including:
a) facilitator/interpreter , b) rapporteur, c) logistics in‐charge.
3. Each team member must have a copy of the FGD guide. The list of themes to
be discussed may be written on the board to serve as guide for FGD
participants on the scope and progress of the discussion.
4. Familiarize yourself with local terminologies/names to avoid
misunderstanding of what the participants say.
5. Keep an open mind and listen more. Do not push your own agenda
6. Avoid questions that yield Yes or No answers.
7. Avoid leading questions
8. Be sensitive to local norms and customs.
9. Remember that the participants’ time is valuable. Strive to complete the FGD
within the time period that you mentioned to participants.
10. Don’t forget to thank participants and local leaders after the conduct of the
FGD.

Logistical arrangements for FGD

• Invitations ‐ Participants are contacted in advance, at least one to two weeks
before the session. A letter of invitation may be sent to each participant, taking
into consideration the prevailing practices in the area. Participants are also
reminded about the focus group discussion one day before the session.
• Group composition ‐ The choice of participants depends on the topic of the
focus group. Often, the people who are included are those knowledgeable about
the topic but at the same time, it is also wise to gather the views of certain
groups in the target population. The optimal number of participants is 8 ‐10. If
a group is too small, one person in the group may dominate it; if it is too big,
then it may be difficult to control. Group members should be representative of
the intended target population.
• Transportation ‐ To ensure attendance, transportation is usually arranged for
the participants from their residence to the focus group venue. In rural areas
where families may reside in distant villages, participants could be asked to
converge at a central location to facilitate pick‐up.
• Venue ‐ Focus group discussions can be conducted in a place where 8 ‐ 10
persons can be seated and assured of some privacy. In the rural areas, the most
readily available sites are school buildings, health and community centers and
churches. An appropriate venue is a neutral place that is free from distractions
and where participants can talk openly.
• Seating arrangements ‐ A semicircular seating arrangement facilitates
interaction among participants because it allows them to freely see and hear
each other.
• Timing ‐ The timing of the meeting should be convenient to all participants.
While waiting for other participants to arrive, the focus group discussion team
can use the time to break the ice by getting information about their
backgrounds. To minimize boredom, focus group discussions are generally not
stretched beyond two hours.
• Name tags ‐ It is best to remember the names of the participants. Often, a
seating arrangement will facilitate identifying each one. If the culture permits,
providing name tags to participants is useful because it enables facilitators to
call on those who may be too shy to express their opinions.
• Recording ‐ A trained rapporteur should capture the discussion in writing and
note the participants’ nonverbal expressions. Situations may occur where the
discussion needs to be tape‐recorded, but facilitators should weigh the
advantages and disadvantages.
• Refreshments ‐ When resources permit, serving refreshments after the
session is a small gesture of appreciation to the participants for having taken
time off their work to participate.

Writing the FGD report

After conducting the focus group discussion, the key findings are
described, analyzed andwritten up in a report. Debus suggests some useful
guidelines for analyzing data:
1. Develop a plan for analysis consisting of:
• background of the research
• objectives
• methods
• discussion details
• focus group discussion guide
2. Analyze the content of the group discussion by:
• reviewing the notes from the focus group
• listening again to the cassettes from the session (if tape recorded)
• grouping research findings according to key themes
• identifying the different positions that emerged under each key theme
• summarizing each of the different positions and assess the extent to which
each position was held by participants
• pulling out verbatim phrases that represent each position.
3. Synthesize the group discussion by:
• reviewing the notes of each discussion made by the moderator
• identifying the recurrent ideas that came out during the discussion
• interpreting these recurrent ideas based upon other findings that emerged in
the groups.

3. In Depth Interview
Qualitative researchers rely quite extensively on in-depth interviewing.
Kahn and Cannell describe interviewing as “a conversation with a purpose”. It
may be the overall strategy or only one of several methods employed. To
distinguish the qualitative interview from, for example, a journalist’s or
television talk-show interview, we might speak of its width instead of its depth.
Interviewing varies in terms of a priori structure and in the latitude the
interviewee has in responding to questions. Patton puts interviews into three
general categories: the informal conversational interview, the general interview
guide approach and the standardized open-ended interview. Qualitative, in-
depth interviews typically are much more like conversations than formal events
with predetermined response categories. The researcher explores a few general
topics to help uncover the participant’s views but otherwise respects how the
participant frames and structures the responses. This method, in fact, is based
on an assumption fundamental to qualitative research: The participant’s
perspective on the phenomenon of interest should unfold as the participant
views it, not as the researcher views it.
The most important aspect of the interviewer’s approach is conveying
the attitude that the participant’s views are valuable and useful. The
interviewer’s success will depend on how well he has anticipated and practiced
his role in ethical issues. Combined with observation, interviews allow the
researcher to understand the meanings that everyday activities hold for people.

Interviewing has limitations and weaknesses. Interviews involve

personal interaction; cooperation is essential. Interviewees may be unwilling or
may be uncomfortable sharing all that the interviewer hopes to explore, or they
may be unaware of recurring patterns in their lives. The interviewer may not
ask questions that evoke long narratives from participants because of a lack of
expertise or familiarity with the local language or because of a lack of skill. By
the same token, she may not properly comprehend responses to the questions or
various elements of the conversation. And at times, interviewees may have
good reason not to be truthful.
Interviewers should have superb listening skills and be skillful at
personal interaction, question framing, and gentle probing for elaboration.
Volumes of data can be obtained through interviewing but are time-consuming
to analyze. Finally, there is the issue of the quality of the data. When the
researcher is using in-depth interviews as the sole way of gathering data, he
should have demonstrated through the conceptual framework that the purpose
of the study is to uncover and describe the participants’ perspectives on events
—that is, that the subjective view is what matters. Studies making more
objectivist assumptions would triangulate interview data with data gathered
through other methods.
In addition to generic in-depth interviewing, there are several
more specialized forms, including ethnographic interviewing,
phenomenological interviewing, elite interviewing, focus-group interviewing,
and interviewing children.
 Ethnographic Interviewing
Based on cognitive anthropology, ethnographic interviewing elicits the
cognitive structures guiding participants’ worldviews. Described as a particular
kind of speech event, ethnographic questions are used by the researcher to
gather cultural data. Ethnographic interviewing is not simply doing an
interview. Instead, it is an elaborate system of a series of interviews structured
to elicit insiders’ cultural knowledge. Spradley identifies three main types of
questions: descriptive, structural, and contrast. Descriptive questions allow the
researcher to collect a sample of participants’ language. Structural questions
discover the basic units in the participants’ cultural knowledge, and contrast
questions provide the ethnographer with the meaning of various terms. The
value of the ethnographic interview lies in its focus on culture through the
participant’s perspective and through firsthand encounter. This approach is
especially useful for eliciting participants’ meanings for events and behaviors
and for generating a typology of cultural classification schemes. It also
highlights the nuances of the culture. The method is flexible in formulating
working hypotheses and avoids oversimplification in description and analysis
because of its rich narrative descriptions.
 Phenomenological Interviewing
Phenomenological interviewing is a specific type of in-depth interviewing
grounded in a philosophical tradition. Phenomenology is the study of lived
experiences and the ways we understand those experiences to develop a
worldview. It rests on the assumption that there is a structure and essence to
shared experiences that can be narrated. The purpose of this type of
interviewing is to describe the meaning of a concept or phenomenon that
several individuals share. As developed by Seidman , three in-depth interviews
compose phenomenological inquiry. The first focuses on past experience with
the phenomenon of interest; the second focuses on present experience; and the
third joins these two narratives to describe the individual’s essential experience
with the phenomenon. Prior to interviewing, however, the researcher using this
technique has written a full description of his own experience, thereby
bracketing off his experiences from those of the interviewees. This phase of the
inquiry is referred to as epoche. The purpose of this self-examination is to
permit the researcher to gain clarity from his own preconceptions, and it is part
of the ongoing process rather than a single fixed event.
The next phase is called phenomenological reduction; here, the
researcher identifies the essence of the phenomenon. The researcher then
clusters the data around themes that describe the textures of the experience. The
final stage, structural synthesis, involves the imaginative exploration of all
possible meanings and divergent perspectives and culminates in a description
of the essence of the phenomenon and its deep structure.
The primary advantage of phenomenological interviewing is that it
permits an explicit focus on the researcher’s personal experience combined
with those of the interviewees. It focuses on the deep, lived meanings that
events have for individuals, assuming that these meanings guide actions and
interactions. It is, however, quite labor-intensive and requires a reflective turn
of mind on the part of the researcher.
 Interviewing of Elites
An interview with an elite person is a specialized case of interviewing that
focuses on a particular type of interviewee. Elite individuals are considered to
be influential, prominent, and/or well-informed in an organization or
community; they are selected for interviews on the basis of their expertise in
areas relevant to the research. Elite interviewing has many advantages.
Valuable information can be gained from these participants because of the
positions they hold in social, political, financial, or administrative realms.
Elites can provide an overall view of an organization or its relationship to other
organizations, albeit from their own limited and bounded perspectives. They
may be quite familiar with the legal and financial structures of the organization.
Elites are also able to report on an organization’s policies, histories, and plans,
again from a particular perspective. Interviewing religious or political leaders
would be obvious examples.
Elite interviewing also presents disadvantages. It is often difficult to
gain access to elites because they are usually busy people operating under
demanding time constraints; they are also often difficult to contact initially. The
interviewer may have to rely on sponsorship, recommendations, and
introductions for assistance in making appointments with elite individuals.
Another disadvantage in interviewing elites is that the interviewer may have to
adapt the planned structure of the interview, based on the wishes and
predilections of the person interviewed. Although this is true with all in-depth
interviewing, elite individuals who are used to being interviewed by the press
and other media may well be quite sophisticated in managing the interview
process. They may want an active interplay with the interviewer. Well practiced
at meeting the public and being in control, an elite person may turn the
interview around, thereby taking charge of it. Elites often respond well to
inquiries about broad areas of content and to open-ended questions that allow
them the freedom to use their knowledge and imagination.
 Interviewing Children
Children may be the primary focus of a study or one of many groups the
researcher wants to interview. There are special considerations, however, when
the qualitative researcher proposes a study that involves children. First are age
considerations. Interviewing preschoolers, for example, is quite different from
interviewing early adolescents.Some adolescents may feel more comfortable
with their peers in a focus-group interview, whereas others may prefer the
intimacy of one-to-one interviews. Decisions about how to gather data with
various age groups requires sensitivity to their needs, their developmental
issues, and flexibility. Second are role considerations. Fine and Sandstrom note
that the roles an adult researcher assumes when studying children vary
along two dimensions:
(1) the extent of positive contact between adult and child, and
(2) the extent to which the adult has direct authority over the child.
The roles of supervisor, leader, observer, and friend are appropriate. Of these,
the role of friend is the most fruitful, noting that the researcher then interacts
with the children in the most trusted way possible—without any explicit
authority role. However, age and power differences between adults and
children are always salient.

4. CASE STUDY

There are multiple definitions and understandings of the case study.

According to Bromley, it is a “systematic inquiry into an event or a set of
related events which aims to describe and explain the phenomenon of
interest” . The unit of analysis can vary from an individual to a corporation.
While there is utility in applying this method retrospectively, it is most often
used prospectively. Data come largely from documentation, archival records,
interviews, direct observations, participant observation and physical artifacts .
The terms “case study”, “case review” and “case report” are used loosely in the
scientific and professional literature. The key features of a case study are its
scientific credentials and its evidence base for professional applications. In a
case study analysis of one to several cases that are unique with respect to the
research topic is done. The analysis primarily focuses on exploring the unique
quality. Cases are selected based on a unique (often rarely observed) quality
and the questions and observations should focus on, and delve deeply into, the
unique feature of interest.
 According to Yin a case study design should be considered when:
(a) the focus of the study is to answer “how” and “why” questions
(b) you cannot manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study
(c) you want to cover contextual conditions because you believe they are
relevant to the phenomenon under study
(d) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context.

Stages of Case Study

Stage 1 - Describing Experience
In this stage the researcher creates interview questions prior to the first
interview, which serve as a script for moving the interviewer closer to eliciting
experience and meaning from participants in each succeeding interview. The
questions should be broad and loosely structured, following the intent of the
research questions.
Stage 2 - Describing Meaning
In this stage the researcher consults the literature and links the research
questions and methods to the philosophical framework. Because the meaning
of experience was also central to this study, the literature on meaning that had
the most relevance for this population was reviewed.
Stage 3 - Focus of the Analysis
Generalization of case study findings is limited to the case itself or types of
cases. However, attention to selected details enhances the analysis and
increases clarity of reasoning.