This introductory article on qualitative research methods for trauma research

is sponsored by the ISTSS Research Methods Special Interest Group and the
Conference on Innovations in Trauma Research Methods (CITRM). It is based
on a presentation by Carl Auerbach at the 2006 CITRM meeting.

As a casual perusal of the Journal of Traumatic Stress shows, the vast

majority of trauma studies are conducted using traditional, standard
quantitative research methodology. The goal of this article is to examine
an alternative methodology for studying trauma — qualitative research.
Before beginning, it is necessary to narrow the article’s scope, because a
comprehensive account of qualitative trauma research is not possible in a
short space, any more than a comprehensive account of quantitative
trauma research would be. In order to narrow the topic down to
manageable size, this article will focus on the grounded theory approach
to qualitative research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and within that tradition,
the version of grounded theory that my colleague Louise Silverstein and I
have developed (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003).

The article itself is organized into sections, each examining a “frequently

asked question” about qualitative research, including:
1. What is qualitative research?
2. Why would you do qualitative research?
3. How do you design a qualitative research study?
4. How do you analyze qualitative data?
5. Where can you learn more about qualitative research?

What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research refers to a broad family of research methodologies,
each of which differs from traditional quantitative research, that may be
described as follows:

Qualitative research is research that involves analyzing and interpreting

text and interviews and observations in order to discover meaningful
patterns descriptive of a particular phenomenon.
The definition contrasts qualitative and quantitative research in two ways.
First quantitative research involves numbers whereas qualitative research
involves patterns, or stories. Second, analyzing quantitative data
involves computation, whereas analyzing qualitative data
involves interpretation. To illustrate, a research study of the personality
variables that predict PTSD in people diagnosed with cancer would be
quantitative research, whereas a study of their experience as cancer
patients would be qualitative research.

Note that the terms overlap somewhat, so that content analysis might
reasonably be considered qualitative research, quantitative research, or a
blend of both.
Return to top of article

Why Would You Do Qualitative Research?

There are several possible answers to this question:
• When you don’t know enough to do hypothesis testing research and
so want to do hypothesis-generating research. Traditional
hypothesis testing research involves choosing independent and
dependent variable(s), and predicting a relationship between
them. If you do not feel in a position to formulate hypotheses in
this form, but nevertheless want to understand a phenomenon,
then qualitative research may be the method of choice.
• When you want to study phenomena in a culture about which there is
limited information. The need for hypothesis generating research
is particularly strong when one is investigating cultural and
diversity research, precisely because we are rarely in a position to
state meaningful hypotheses for cultures different from our own.
For example, a student dissertation investigated traumatization
in Cambodian refugees who fled the Khmer Rouge and came to
live in the South Bronx (Shiro-Gelrud, 2001). At the time that the
study was planned there was not enough information to
formulate meaningful hypotheses about this particular
community, a situation which is at least partly true even now.
• When you are interested in people’s subjective experience for clinical
and/or policy reasons. For example, a qualitative study of cancer
patients would be useful to clinicians who want to work with this
population, and for policy makers who want to develop programs
to work with them.