Qualitative Inquiry

2
Pranee Liamputtong

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Why Qualitative Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Qualitative Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Qualitative Inquiry: The Distinctiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1 Theory Generation: Inductive Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Framing the Study: Methodological Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 “Data Enhancers”: Qualitative Data Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 The Source of Data: Research Participants, Sampling Strategy, and Saturation
Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5 Qualitative Research and Trustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6 Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Analytic Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 Conclusion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Abstract
This chapter discusses the nature of the qualitative inquiry. Qualitative inquiry
refers to “a broad approach” that qualitative researchers adopt as a means to
examine social circumstances. The inquiry is based on an assumption which
posits that people utilize “what they see, hear, and feel” to make sense of social
experiences. There are many features that differentiate qualitative inquiry from
the quantitative approach. Fundamentally, it is interpretive. The meanings and
interpretations of the participants are the essence of qualitative inquiry. Qualita-
tive researchers can be perceived as constructivists who attempt to find answers in
the real world. Fundamentally, qualitative researchers look for meanings that
people have constructed. Qualitative research is valuable in many ways. It offers

P. Liamputtong (*)
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
e-mail: p.liamputtong@westernsydney.edu.au

# Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 9

P. Liamputtong (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_53
10 P. Liamputtong

researchers to hear silenced voices, to work with marginalized and vulnerable

people, to address social justice issues, and to contribute to the person-centered
healthcare and the design of clinical trials. The chapter discusses in great depth
the distinctive features of the qualitative inquiry. In particular, it includes the
inductive nature of qualitative research, methodological frameworks, purposive
sampling technique, saturation concept, qualitative data analysis, and the trust-
worthiness of a qualitative study.

Keywords
Qualitative inquiry · Meaning and interpretation · Qualitative researcher ·
Methodological framework · Saturation · Trustworthiness

1 Introduction

Qualitative inquiry seeks to discover and to describe narratively what particular people do in
their everyday lives and what their actions mean to them. It identifies meaning-relevant kinds
of things in the world—kinds of people, kinds of actions, kinds of beliefs and interests—
focusing on differences in forms of things that make a difference for meaning. (Erikson
2018, p. 36, original emphasis)

Qualitative inquiry refers to “a broad approach” that qualitative researchers adopt

as a means to examine social circumstances. The inquiry is based on an assumption
which posits that people utilize “what they see, hear, and feel” to make sense of
social experiences (Rossman and Rallis 2017, p. 5). Fundamentally, qualitative
research contributes to the social inquiry which aims to interpret “the meanings of
human actions” (Bradbury-Jones et al. 2017, p. 627). It is a type of research that
embodies individuals as the “whole person living in dynamic, complex social
arrangements” (Rogers 2000, p. 51).
The word “qualitative” derives from the Latin word “qualitas”, which pertains to
“a primary focus on the qualities, the features, of entities” (Erikson 2018, p. 36).
In contrast, the word “quantitative” is from the word “quantitas” which relates to
“a primary focus on differences in amount” (Erikson 2018, p. 36). The term
qualitative, according to Denzin and Lincoln (2011, p. 8), has its focus on “the
qualities of entities” as well as on “processes and meanings that are not experimen-
tally examined or measured in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency.”
Qualitative inquiry, according to Rossman and Rallis (2017, p. 5), is grounded in
“empiricism,” the philosophical tradition which theorizes that “knowledge is
obtained by direct experience through the physical senses.” Aristotle, one of the
first qualitative researchers, attempted to interpret things in the world by listening
and watching. He theorized that ideas that we have are concepts that are derived from
our experiences with actual beings, objects, and events. This is what qualitative
researchers do. Often, qualitative researchers work closely with individuals, and they
listen attentively on what the participants say, probe further, and try to make sense
of what the participants tell them.
2 Qualitative Inquiry 11

Qualitative inquiry has its focus on the social world. The qualitative research
approach, according to Hesse-Biber (2017, p. 4), offers “a unique grounding posi-
tion” for researchers to undertake research that “fosters particular ways of asking
questions” and “provides a point of view onto the social world,” which in turn will
help researchers “to obtain understanding of a social issue or problem that privileges
subjective and multiple understandings.” Qualitative research offers “explanations
for objects or social actions” (Rossman and Rallis 2017, p. 8). In the social world, we
deal with the subjective experiences of individuals. In different social situations and
over time, people’s “understanding of reality” can change (Dew 2007, p. 434). This
makes qualitative research different from researching the natural world, which can
be treated as “objects or things” (Taylor et al. 2016). In order to capture and
understand the perspectives of individuals, qualitative inquiry relies heavily on
words or stories that these individuals tell researchers (Liamputtong 2013; Patton
2015; Creswell and Poth 2018). Thus, qualitative research has also been recognized
as “the word science” (Denzin 2008; Liamputtong 2017).
According to Yin (2016), Marshall and Rossman (2016), Taylor et al. (2016),
Tolley (2016), Rossman and Rallis (2017), and Creswell and Poth (2018), there are
common features of qualitative inquiry. These are presented in Table 1.
Qualitative research traverses many fields and disciplines (Denzin and Lincoln
2018). Qualitative research has been adopted extensively in the social sciences,
particularly in anthropology and sociology. We have also witnessed the wider
adoption of a qualitative approach in criminology, social work, education, nursing,
and even psychology and medicine. In the past decade or so, qualitative data or
interpretive information has been gradually accepted as a crucial component in our
understanding of health (Green and Thorogood 2014; Liamputtong 2016, 2017). In
public health, particularly the new public health that recognizes the need to “under-
stand” people, Baum (2016, p. 201) suggests that qualitative research is needed since

Table 1 Common features of qualitative inquiry

Qualitative inquiry: Common features

• It is fundamentally interpretive
• The meanings and interpretation of the participants is the essence of
qualitative inquiry
• It asks why, how, and under what circumstance things arise
• It explicitly attends to and account for the contextual conditions of the
participants
• It takes place in the natural settings of human life
• It emphasizes holistic accounts and multiple realities
• It is situated within some methodological frameworks
• It makes use of multiple methods
• It is emergent rather than rigidly predetermined
• Participants are treated as an active respondents rather than as subject
• The researcher is the means through which the research is undertaken.
12 P. Liamputtong

it offers “considerable strength in understanding and interpreting complexities” of

people’s behavior and their health issues (see Liamputtong 2016).
Readers may notice that qualitative research is often used interchangeably with
the term “qualitative inquiry.” Dimitriadis (2016) suggests that the word “research”
should be replaced with the word “inquiry.” He argues that the word “research” is
“tainted by a lingering positivism.” This is the consequence of the paradigm wars
operating within the influence of evidence-based practices in medicine that has
treated qualitative research badly (Liamputtong 2016, 2017; Torrance 2017; Denzin
2018). Instead, inquiry “implies an open-endedness, uncertainty, ambiguity, praxis,
pedagogies of liberation, freedom, [and] resistance” (Denzin and Lincoln 2018,
p. 11). I will mainly use the term qualitative inquiry in this chapter, but occasionally,
I will also use the term qualitative research.

2 Why Qualitative Inquiry

Readers might ask why should researchers use qualitative inquiry in their research.
Creswell and Poth (2018, p. 45) contend that qualitative research is adopted because
there is a problem or issue that needs to be explored. This is particularly when
“silenced voices” need to be heard or problems or issues cannot be “easily mea-
sured.” Qualitative inquiry permits researchers to ask questions, and to find answers,
that can be difficult or impossible with the quantitative approach (Hesse-Biber
2017). For example, What makes many working-class men continue to smoke?
Why do some health and social care programs do not work? What makes some of
these programs succeed? Why are screening programs underused? What contributes
to stigma and discrimination in the local areas despite extensive media and educa-
tional campaigns in the country? Why do women with low incomes put motherhood
before marriage? How do single mothers confront their social and economic chal-
lenges? How do young refugee people deal with social isolation? How do migrant
mothers deal with infant feeding practices in their new social environment? These
are some examples of what qualitative research can find answers for health and
social care policy-makers and professionals.
According to Yin (2016, p. 3), every real-world issue can be examined by the
qualitative inquiry. These real-world issues are what Patton (2015) refers to as
“stuff.” Yin writes:

Stuff happens everywhere. Qualitative inquiry documents the stuff that happens among real
people in the real world in their own words, from their own perspectives, and within their
own contexts; it then makes sense of the stuff that happens by finding patterns and themes
among the seeming chaos and idiosyncrasies of lots of stuff.

Qualitative research is essentially crucial for research involving marginalized,

vulnerable, or hard-to-reach individuals and communities (Liamputtong 2007, 2010;
Taylor et al. 2016; Flick 2018). This is particularly so when they are “too small to
become visible” in quantitative research (Flick 2018, p. 452; Greenhalgh et al. 2016;
2 Qualitative Inquiry 13

Yin 2016). More importantly, due to their marginalized, vulnerable status, and
distrust in research, most of these individuals tend to decline to participate in
research. The nature of qualitative inquiry will permit qualitative researchers to be
able to engage with these individuals. In their qualitative research (using life history
narratives and intersubjective dialogue) with previously incarcerated HIV-positive
women in Alabama, Sprague et al. (2017, p. 725) tell us that:

The qualitative design and accompanying methods applied in this study enabled us to
explore the timing, sequence, and import of life events and behaviors driving risk for HIV
and incarceration—while grounding these realities firmly in their unique social context to
foster a greater understanding of women’s lived experiences. These methods allowed for
exploring the interaction and intersection between different variables, such as abuse and drug
use, across the life course. Such interaction effects are poorly controlled for in more
quantitative or modeling approaches. . . Qualitative research methods are uniquely able to
wrestle with multiple social structural factors and influences in ways that remain unmatched
by other research methods.

We have also witnessed the rise of qualitative inquiry in research relating to the
social justice issues (see Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Taylor et al. 2016; Daniels et al.
2017). However, this trend has also been practiced by many social scientists in the
past. Becker (1967), in his piece “Whose Side Are We On?,” discussed the role of
social scientists in presenting the voices of some marginalized groups of people.
Becker contended that “since powerful people have many means at their disposal to
present their versions of reality, we should side with society’s underdogs, the pow-
erless” (Taylor et al. 2016, p. 26). C Wright Mills (1959) believed that it is the political
responsibility of social scientists to help individuals to understand their “personal
troubles,” which are also “social issues” that confronted others in the society as well.
Qualitative research has increasingly received interest in the patient-centered care
and evidence-based practice in healthcare (Olson et al. 2016). This is mainly because
qualitative inquiry can cultivate great understanding of the beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviors of the patients and consumers (Liamputtong 2013, 2016, 2017; Olson et
al. 2016; Thirsk and Clark 2017). These in-depth understanding will permit health
professionals to better accommodate health interventions to suit the needs of the
consumers (Yardley et al. 2015). In the areas of HIV/AIDS, for example, HIV/AIDS
is a global public health concern, and antiretroviral therapy (ART) has saved many
lives worldwide. However, nonadherence to ART is still a huge issue in most parts of
the world (Liamputtong et al. 2015; Fields et al. 2017). Sankar et al. (2006, p. S54)
contend that qualitative research can contribute greatly to our understanding of the
nonadherence of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART). Qualitative inquiry pro-
vides a unique means for understanding the complex factors that influence adherence
(see Sankar et al. 2006; Liamputtong et al. 2015; Fields et al. 2017).
According to Sankar et al. (2006), qualitative inquiry offers persuasive means for
exploring adherence to ART. Often, there are many factors that influence adherence
among individuals including culture, stigma, medication beliefs, and access. Sankar
et al. (2006, p. S54) argue that “a disregard for the social and cultural context of
adherence or the imposition of adherence models inconsistent with local values and
14 P. Liamputtong

practices is likely to produce irrelevant or ineffective interventions.” Sankar et al.

(2006, p. S65) also contend that thus far qualitative research has been essential in
studies concerning ART adherence as it has unfolded “key features and behaviors
that could not have been identified using quantitative methods alone” (see
Liamputtong et al. 2015).
Qualitative research can contribute effectively to the design of clinical trials in
healthcare (Duggleby and Williams 2016; Russell et al. 2016; Toye et al. 2016).
Qualitative inquiry helps trial researchers to know their trial participants better. It can
also help the researchers to comprehend the successes and failure of trial interven-
tions, which can save money on trials that might not work (Toye et al. 2016).
Essentially, the qualitative inquiry can “show the human faces behind the numbers,
providing critical context when interpreting statistical outcomes,” as well as make
sure that “the numbers can be understood as constituting meaningful changes in the
lives of real people” (Patton 2015, p. 179).

3 Qualitative Researchers

Fundamentally, qualitative researchers look for meanings that people have

constructed (Taylor et al. 2016; Hesse-Biber 2017; Denzin and Lincoln 2018).
They are interested in learning about “how people make sense of their world and
the experiences they have in the world” (Merriam and Tisdell 2016, p. 15). Quali-
tative researchers can be perceived as “constructivists” who “seek answers to their
questions in the real world” (Rossman and Rallis 2017, p. 4) and then “interpret what
they see, hear, and read in the worlds around them” (p. 5).
Qualitative researchers are individuals who commit themselves to several issues.
Figure 1 presents the characteristics of qualitative researchers.
Qualitative researchers are also seen as craftspersons (Taylor et al. 2016, p. 11).
They are malleable in how they carry out their research. They are social scientists
who are inspired to be a research methodologist who “deploy a wide range of
interconnected interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding
of the subject matter at hand” (Denzin and Lincoln 2018, p. 10).
Qualitative inquiry is personal and sensitize to personal biography as the researcher
acts as “the instrument of inquiry” (Patton 2015, p. 3; Rossman and Rallis 2017, p. 9).
What brings qualitative researchers to their research matters. Thus, qualitative
researchers tend to acknowledge who they are and how their personal biography
frames their research. They value their “unique perspective as a source of understand-
ing rather than something to be cleansed from the study” (Rossman and Rallis 2017,
p. 9). Qualitative research is an exquisite sensitivity to personal biography.

4 Qualitative Inquiry: The Distinctiveness

I have pointed out to general features of qualitative inquiry at the beginning. In the
following sections, I will discuss some salient characteristics in more details.
2 Qualitative Inquiry 15

Are re!lexive in the

Interact extensively
conduct and
with the
interpretation of
participants
research

Are sensitive to See the social world

personal biography holistically

Have a strong
commitment to
examining an issue Qualitative Employ multiple
from the
participant’s researchers reasoning

perspective

Fig. 1 Salient characteristics of qualitative researchers

4.1 Theory Generation: Inductive Approach

Typically, qualitative research is inductive. The qualitative research adopts “a logic

of ‘theory generation’ rather than ‘theory testing’” as practiced in quantitative
research (Hesse-Biber 2017, p. 11; see also ▶ Chap. 3, “Quantitative Research”).
Inductive reasoning will allow researchers to adopt particular understandings and
develop a general conceptual understanding of the issue they examine (Babbie 2016;
Taylor et al. 2016; Rossman and Rallis 2017).
Qualitative research projects typically commence with the collection of particular
data and follow with the analysis that will allow the researchers to form a more
general understanding of the issue they examine (Green and Thorogood 2014;
Berger and Lorenz 2016; Merriam and Tisdell 2016; Hesse-Biber 2017). Thus,
guiding questions that they use to collect their data are open-ended that permit
allow multiple meanings to surface. Usually, the questions that researchers ask in
qualitative research start with words like “how,” “why,” or “what” (Hesse-Biber
2017, p. 4), rather than questions about “how many” or “how much” (Green and
Thorogood 2014, p. 5). For instance, How do women living with breast cancer cope
with their health condition during chemotherapy treatment?, Why do many working
mothers experience struggles to continue breastfeeding?, and What prejudice and
discrimination that transwomen experience in their everyday life?
Nevertheless, despite being inductive, often qualitative researchers commence
their study with some conceptual frameworks that shape their decisions in under-
taking their research. However, this framework is adjustable. It can change as the
study is being conducted (Rossman and Rallis 2017).
16 P. Liamputtong

4.2 Framing the Study: Methodological Frameworks

Qualitative research tends to be situated within some methodological frameworks.

Methodology determines a method for researchers to produce data for analysis
(Taylor et al. 2016; Hesse-Biber 2017; Silverman 2017; Gaudet and Robert 2018).
Avis (2003, p. 1003) contends that qualitative researchers need to provide their
“methodological justification” by discussing the reason why they select a particular
method in their research. The methods that researchers select and what they expect to
get out of those methods is strongly formed by their “methodological position” (Dew
2007, p. 433).
A methodological framework provides “ways of seeing” (Morgan 1986, p. 12) in
the conduct of qualitative research. Qualitative researchers must defend the adoption
of their methods based on an appropriate methodological framework (Avis 2003;
Taylor et al. 2016). It is not enough to say that we will use an in-depth interview in
our research to examine the experience of living with chronic illness among our
research participants. We must provide some framework to justify our method. In
this case, we may say that we are interested in the lived experience of participants,
and hence phenomenology will be our methodological framework, and with this
type of research, an in-depth interview is appropriate because it will allow partici-
pants to tell their stories in great depth (Liamputtong 2013).
There are many methodological frameworks and research approaches practiced
by qualitative researchers (Bradbury-Jones et al. 2017; Denzin and Lincoln 2018;
Gaudet and Robert 2018). These include ethnography, symbolic interactionism,
phenomenology, feminism, postmodernism, ethnomethodology, empathy, participa-
tory action research, grounded theory, case study, and Indigenist methodology.
According to Hesse-Biber (2017, p.10), “the diversity of the methods with which
qualitative researchers work is one of the distinguishing features of the qualitative
landscape, which makes for a vast range of possible research topics and questions”
(see also Bradbury-Jones et al. 2017; Denzin and Lincoln 2018). Bradbury-Jones
et al. (2017, p. 628) suggest that the diversity of approaches that are available to
qualitative researchers provides “a significant benefit” as it “provides a rich pool of
methodological and technical options” that researchers can employ in their research.
In my own writing, I have advocated several methodological frameworks
that qualitative researchers can draw on. These include ethnography, phenomenol-
ogy, symbolic interactionism, hermeneutics, feminism, and postmodernism. Taylor
et al. (2016) recommend several frameworks. These include phenomenology, sym-
bolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, feminism, institutional ethnography, post-
modernism, narrative analysis, and multi-sited, global research. In her recent book,
Hesse-Biber (2017) suggests different methodological lenses including symbolic
interactionism, dramaturgy, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, postmodernism,
feminisms, critical race theory, and queer theory. Gaudet and Robert (2018) propose
five frameworks: phenomenology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative
analysis, and ethnography (see also ▶ Chaps. 8, “Critical Theory: Epistemological
Content and Method,” ▶ 10, “Symbolic Interactionism as a Methodological
Framework,” ▶ 11, “Hermeneutics: A Boon for Cross-Disciplinary Research,”
2 Qualitative Inquiry 17

▶ 13, “Critical Ethnography in Public Health: Politicizing Culture and Politicizing

Methodology,” ▶ 14, “Empathy as Research Methodology,” ▶ 16, “Ethnometh-
odology,” ▶ 15, “Indigenist and Decolonizing Research Methodology,” ▶ 17,
“Community-Based Participatory Action Research,” and ▶ 27, “Institutional
Ethnography”).
Different methodological frameworks offer different perspectives in the conduct
of qualitative research (Silverman 2017). Each methodological framework may also
be suitable for some research questions than others. Qualitative researchers must
carefully consider which methodological framework will be more appropriate for
their research project.

4.3 “Data Enhancers”: Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Qualitative research methods have been coined as “data enhancers” as they disclose
“elements of empirical reality” which cannot be revealed by numbers (Neuman
2011; Berger and Lorenz 2016). All qualitative research methods attempt to obtain
“rich, highly detailed accounts,” what Clifford Geertz (1973) refers to as “thick
description” of a small number of people (Berger and Lorenz 2016).
Traditionally, there are a number of methods that qualitative researchers use to
collect empirical materials in their research. These include in-depth interviewing
method, focus group, life or oral history, and unobtrusive methods (see also
▶ Chaps. 23, “Qualitative Interviewing,” ▶ 25, “The Life History Interview,” and
▶ 29, “Unobtrusive Methods”). Among these methods, the in-depth interviewing
method is the most commonly known technique and is widely employed by quali-
tative researchers (Minichiello et al. 2008; King and Horrocks 2010; Brinkmann and
Kvale 2015; Serry and Liamputtong 2017). As Fontana and Frey (2000, p. 646)
suggest, we reside in “an interview society.” Thus, interviews have become essential
for individuals to make sense of people’s lives (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015).
In-depth interviewing method refers to “face-to-face encounter between the
researcher and informants directed toward understanding informants’ perspectives on
their experiences, or situations as expressed in their own words” (Taylor et al. 2016, p.
102). Gubrium et al. (2012) suggest that interviewing is a way of collecting empirical
data about the social world of individuals by inviting them to talk about their lives in
great depth. In an interview conversation, the researcher asks questions and then listens
to what individuals say about their experiences such as their dreams, fears, and hopes.
The researcher will then hear about their perspectives in their own words and learn about
their family and social life and work (Kvale 2007; Brinkmann and Kvale 2015). Rubin
and Rubin (2012, p. 3) say that in-depth interviewing “helps reconstruct events the
researchers have never experienced.” It is particularly valuable when researchers wish to
learn about the life of a wide range of individuals, “from illegal border crossing to
becoming a paid assassin” (see also ▶ Chap. 23, “Qualitative Interviewing”).
There are other qualitative approaches that embody some forms of qualitative
method. However, they are often referred to as the method (although some may
refer them to as research traditions). These include the ethnographic method,
18 P. Liamputtong

narrative research, grounded theory, memory work, autoethnography, case study,

and participatory action research. It is not feasible to discuss all of these methods in
this chapter. Readers can read more about them in the Qualitative Approaches and
Practices in the handbook (see also ▶ Chaps. 24, “Narrative Research,” ▶ 26,
“Ethnographic Method,” ▶ 27, “Institutional Ethnography,” ▶ 18, “Grounded The-
ory Methodology: Principles and Practices,” ▶ 30, “Autoethnography,” and ▶ 31,
“Memory Work”).

4.4 The Source of Data: Research Participants, Sampling

Strategy, and Saturation Concept

Qualitative research is concerned with the in-depth understanding of the issue or

issues under examination; it thus relies heavily on individuals who are able to
provide information-rich accounts of their experiences (Patton 2015; Yin 2016;
Creswell and Poth 2018). This is referred to as the purposive sampling strategy
(Liamputtong 2013; Houser 2015; Patton 2015; Bryman 2016; Yin 2016; Hesse-
Biber 2017; Creswell and Poth 2018). Purposive sampling is a deliberate selection of
specific individuals, events, or settings because of the crucial information they can
provide, which cannot be obtained as adequately through other channels (Patton
2015; White 2015; Babbie 2016; Yin 2016; Creswell and Poth 2018). For example,
in research that is concerned with how women with breast cancer deal with the side
effects of chemotherapy treatment, purposive sampling will require the researcher to
find women who have experienced the side effects of chemotherapy, instead of
randomly selecting any cancer patients from an oncologist’s patient list. The purpo-
sive sample is also referred to as a “judgment sample” (Hesse-Biber 2017, p. 62).
Research participants are selected to be included in a study due to their particular
characteristics as determined by the particular objective of the research.
The powers of purposive sampling techniques, Patton (2015, p. 264, original
emphasis) suggests, “lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth.”
These information-rich cases are individuals or events or settings from which
researchers can learn extensively about issues they wish to examine (Houser 2015;
Liamputtong 2017; Creswell and Poth 2018).
The focus of decisions about sample size in qualitative research is on “flexibility
and depth.” As I have suggested earlier, a fundamental concern of qualitative
research is quality, not quantity. A qualitative research usually involves
a small number of individuals. Qualitative research aims to examine the “meanings”
or a “process” that individuals give to their own social situations. It does not
require a generalization of the findings as in positivist science (Houser 2015;
Hesse-Biber 2017). Qualitative research trades “breadth for depth” (Hesse-Biber
2017, p. 63). The important question to ask is whether the sample provides data that
will allow the research questions or aims to be thoroughly addressed (Mason 2002;
Green and Thorogood 2014; Houser 2015).
In qualitative research, there is no set formula that can be adopted to determine the
sample size rigidly (Malterud et al. 2016). Often, at the commencement of the
2 Qualitative Inquiry 19

research project, the number of participants to be recruited is not definitely known.

However, data saturation, a concept associated with grounded theory, tends to be
adopted by qualitative researchers to determine the number of research participants
(see Hennink et al. 2017). Saturation is considered to occur when little or no new
data is being generated (Padgett 2008; Liamputtong 2013; Green and Thorogood
2014; White 2015). O’Reilly and Parker (2012, p. 192) suggest that saturation is
reached at “the point at which there are fewer surprises and there are no more
emergent patterns in the data.” The sample is adequate when “the emerging themes
have been efficiently and effectively saturated with optimal quality data” (Carpenter
and Suto 2008, p. 152) and when “sufficient data to account for all aspects of the
phenomenon have been obtained” (Morse et al. 2002, p. 12).
Saturation is usually established during the data collection process (Houser 2015;
Malterud et al. 2016). This means that in most qualitative research, data collection
and data analysis tend to occur concurrently. This is the only way that researchers
can know if they have reached saturation or not (Liamputtong 2013; Liamputtong
and Serry 2017). Despite its usefulness, saturation has received some criticism,
and many qualitative researchers have also questioned its use (see Morse 2015a).
There are also different levels and types of saturation (see code saturation and
meaning saturation discussed by Hennink et al. 2017). Due to space of the chapter,
I encourage readers to refer to some of the references I have included here.

4.5 Qualitative Research and Trustworthiness

Qualitative research has criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of the
research. Within the qualitative approach, we use the term “rigor” or “trustworthi-
ness,” which refers to the quality of qualitative inquiry (Liamputtong 2013; Coleman
and Unrau 2014; Morse 2015b; Bryman 2016; Marshall and Rossman 2016; Yin
2016; Rossman and Rallis 2017). A trustworthy research, according to Houser
(2015, p. 146), is a research that researchers have “drawn the correct conclusions
about the meaning of an event or phenomenon.” In health research and practice in
particular, trustworthiness means that “the findings must be authentic enough to
allow practitioners to act upon them with confidence” (Raines 2011, p. 497).
Lincoln and Guba (1989) propose four criteria that many qualitative researchers
have adopted to evaluate the trustworthiness of their qualitative research. The criteria
were invented in responses to the influence of quantitative research that
relies heavily on the issues of validity and reliability (Morse 2015b, 2018; see
▶ Chaps. 3, “Quantitative Research,” and ▶ 38, “Measurement Issues in Quantita-
tive Research”). These criteria include credibility, dependability, confirmability, and
transferability.
Credibility relates to the question “how believable are the findings?” (Bryman
2016, p. 44). A credible study, according to Yin (2016, p. 85), refers to a study that
“provides assurance that you have properly collected and interpreted the data, so the
findings and conclusions accurately reflect and represent the world that was studied.”
Dependability focuses on “the consistency or congruency of the results” (Raines
20 P. Liamputtong

2011, p. 456). It asks whether the research findings fit the data that have been
collected (Carpenter and Suto 2008). Confirmability attempts to show that the
findings and the interpretations of the findings do not derive from the imagination
of the researchers but are clearly linked to the data.
Transferability (also referred to as applicability) begs the question of “to what
degree can the study findings be generalised or applied to other individuals or
groups, contexts, or settings?” or “do the findings apply to other contexts?” (Bryman
2016, p. 44). It attempts to establish the “generalisability of inquiry” (Tobin
and Begley 2004, p. 392). Transferability in qualitative research emphasizes
the theoretical or analytical generalizability of research findings. Transferability
suggests that the theoretical knowledge that researchers obtained from qualitative
research can be applied to other similar individuals, groups, or settings (Sandelowski
2004; Carpenter and Suto 2008; Padgett 2008). This is particularly so for
research employing the ethnographic method and grounded theory research (see
Gobo and Marciniak 2016; Wong et al. 2017; Creswell and Poth 2018; see also
▶ Chaps. 26, “Ethnographic Method,” and ▶ 18, “Grounded Theory Methodology:
Principles and Practices”).
There are several strategies that qualitative researchers employ to ensure the rigor
of their study. Often, these include prolonged engagement, persistent observation,
thick description, peer review, member checking, external audits, triangulation, and
reflexivity (Liamputtong 2013; Coleman and Unrau 2014; Morse 2015b; Rossman
and Rallis 2017; Creswell and Poth 2018). Each of these strategies may not be
suitable for all types of qualitative research, and some strategies may create diffi-
culties for some qualitative projects than others (see Morse 2015b). Qualitative
researchers need to take into account the type of qualitative method they use and
social context on which their research is situated.

4.6 Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Analytic Strategies

As I have suggested, qualitative inquiry relies heavily on words and stories, how
qualitative researchers make sense of their data also reflect this. Data analysis and
interpretation of data are an exciting process that qualitative researchers bring
meaning to the piles of data that they have gathered (Rossman and Rallis 2017,
p. 227). It is a complex process and involves the following: “organizing the data,
familiarizing with the data, identifying categories, coding the data, generating
themes, interpreting, and searching for alternative understanding” (Rossman and
Rallis 2017, p. 237).
There are several analytic strategies that qualitative researchers analyze and
organize their data. These include content analysis, thematic analysis, discourse
analysis, narrative analysis, and semiotic analysis method (Liamputtong 2013;
see ▶ Chaps. 47, “Content Analysis: Using Critical Realism to Extend Its Utility,”
▶ 48, “Thematic Analysis,” ▶ 49, “Narrative Analysis,” and ▶ 50, “Critical Dis-
course/Discourse Analysis”). Thematic analysis method seems to be the most
commonly adopted in qualitative research. It is seen as “a foundational method for
2 Qualitative Inquiry 21

qualitative analysis” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 78). Thematic analysis is “a method
for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within the data” (Braun
and Clarke 2006, p. 79; see also ▶ Chap. 48, “Thematic Analysis”).
Nowadays, there are some software programs, such as NVivo, ATLAS.ti, and
MAXQDA, that can assist qualitative researchers with the analysis. This is referred
to as “computer assisted qualitative data analysis” (CAQDAS) (Yin 2016; Serry and
Liamputtong 2017; see also ▶ Chap. 52, “Using Qualitative Data Analysis Software
(QDAS) to Assist Data Analyses”). However, the software programs do not analyze
the data per se; they help to manage the qualitative data more efficiently (Creswell
and Poth 2018). The researchers still have to perform “all the analytic thinking” (Yin
2016, p. 188). Another word, “the real analytical work” still “takes place in your
head” (Patton 2015, p. 531).
It must be noted that qualitative data analysis is a time-consuming process.
However, it is also “creative and fascinating.” Sufficient time needs to be dedicated
to data analysis in qualitative research. Taylor et al. (2016) contend that data analysis
is the most difficult thing for qualitative researchers to teach or communicate to
others. Most novice qualitative researchers tend to “get stuck” when they start to
analyze their data. Taylor et al. (2016, p. 168) contend that this is because qualitative
analysis “is not fundamentally a mechanical or technical process; it is a process of
inductive reasoning, thinking and theorizing.” For most qualitative researchers, their
ability to analyze their data arises out of their experience. The best way that
researchers can learn more about inductive analysis is to work with “a mentor who
helps them learn to see patterns or themes in data by pointing these out” and by
reading qualitative papers and studies to see how others have come up with their
data. This is my recommendation as well.

5 Conclusion and Future Directions

Qualitative research is now a well-established and important mode of inquiry for the
social and health science fields (Marshall and Rossman 2016). However, the field of
qualitative research is ever advancing (Hesse-Biber 2017). Gaudet and Robert
(2018, p. 2) suggest that “qualitative research is a never-ending journey.” This is
because “there are always new phenomena to learn about, new methods to invent
and new forms of knowledge to create.” We have witnessed this, and chapters in the
Innovative Research Methods in Health Social Sciences attest to this.
We have also witnessed that qualitative inquiry is increasingly used as part of
a mixed methods research (Hesse-Biber 2017). This is clearly articulated in
▶ Chaps. 60, “Appraising Mixed Methods Research,” ▶ 39, “Integrated Methods
in Research,” and ▶ 40, “The Use of Mixed Methods in Research”. Creswell and
Poth (2018, p. 47) suggest that qualitative research “keeps good company” with
quantitative research. However, it is not “an easy substitute for a ‘statistical’ or
quantitative study.”
Most importantly, we are now living in a fractured world, where we have and
continue to be confronted with social inequalities and injustices in all corners of the
22 P. Liamputtong

world (Flick 2014). We need qualitative research that can help us to find better
answers that better suit people, particularly those who are marginalized and vulner-
able (Mertens 2009; Denzin 2015; Flick 2018). Qualitative inquiry can lead to a
positive change in the lives of many people. This is what Denzin (2010, 2015, 2017)
has advocated. Denzin (2017, p. 8) puts this clearly when he calls for qualitative
research that “matters in the lives of those who daily experience social injustice.” We
have witnessed critical qualitative research in the last decades or so, and this is also
reflected in several chapters in this handbook (see ▶ Chaps. 12, “Feminism and
Healthcare: Toward a Feminist Pragmatist Model of Healthcare Provision,”
▶ 15, “Indigenist and Decolonizing Research Methodology,” and ▶ 13, “Critical
Ethnography in Public Health: Politicizing Culture and Politicizing Methodology”).
I contend that critical qualitative research will continue to play a crucial role in
qualitative inquiry in the years to come.
I would like to end this chapter with the Chinese proverb: “The journey is the
reward.” The proverb indeed, as Maschi and Youdin (2012, p. 206) contend,
underscores “the importance of the process of using a qualitative approach to
understanding human experience.” I hope readers who adopt qualitative inquiry
will “find it exhilarating and deeply moving.” And indeed, it “can change your
worldview” (Rossman and Rallis 2017, p. 10).

References
Avis M. Do we need methodological theory to do qualitative research? Qual Health Res.
2003;13(7):995–1004.
Babbie E. The practice of social research. 14th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2016.
Baum F. The new public health. 5th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2016.
Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Soc Probl. 1967;14(3):239–47.
Berger RJ, Lorenz LS. Disability and qualitative research. In: Berger RJ, Lorenz LS, editors.
Disability and qualitative inquiry: methods for rethinking an ableist world (Chapter 1).
Hoboken: Taylor & Francis; 2016.
Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Clark MT, Herber OR, Wagstaff C, Taylor J. The state of
qualitative research in health and social science literature: a focused mapping review and
synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(6):627–45.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
Brinkmann S, Kvale S. InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.
Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
Carpenter C, Suto M. Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists: a practical
guide. Oxford: Blackwell; 2008.
Coleman H, Unrau YA. Qualitative data analysis – a step-by-step approach. In: Grinnell RM, Unrau
YA, editors. Social work research and evaluation: foundations of evidence-based practice.
19th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 554–72.
Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches.
5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.
Daniels K, Hanefeld J, Marchal B. Social sciences: vital to improving our understanding of health equity,
policy and systems. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0546-6.
2 Qualitative Inquiry 23

Denzin NK. The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. Int J Qual Stud Educ.
2008;21(4):315–25.
Denzin NK. The qualitative manifesto: a call to arms. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2010.
Denzin NK. What is critical qualitative inquiry? In: Cannella GS, Perez MS, Pasque PA, editors.
Critical qualitative inquiry: foundations and futures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2015.
p. 31–50.
Denzin NK. Critical qualitative inquiry. Qual Inq. 2017;23(1):8–16.
Denzin NK. The elephant in the living room, or extending the conversation about the politics of
evidence. In: Denzin NK, Loncoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018. p. 839–53.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage; 2011.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In:
Denzin NK, Loncoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage; 2018. p. 1–26.
Dew K. A health researcher’s guide to qualitative methodologies. Aust N Z J Public Health.
2007;31(5:433–7.
Dimitriadis G. Reading qualitative inquiry through critical pedagogy: some reflections. Int Rev
Qualit Res. 2016;9:140–6.
Duggleby W, Williams A. Methodological and epistemological considerations in utilizing qualita-
tive inquiry to develop interventions. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(2):147–53.
Erikson F. A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In: Denzin NK,
Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage;
2018. p. 36–65.
Fields EL, Bogart LM, Thurston IB, Hu CH, Skeer MR, Safren SA, Mimiaga MJ. Qualitative
comparison of barriers to antiretroviral medication adherence among perinatally and behavior-
ally HIV-infected youth. Qual Health Res. 2017;27(8):1177–89.
Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.
Flick U. Triangulation. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative
research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018. p. 444–61.
Fontana A, Frey JH. The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. In: Denzin NK,
Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000. p.
645–72.
Gaudet S, Robert D. A journey through qualitative research: from design to reporting. London:
Sage; 2018.
Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973.
Gobo G, Marciniak LT. What is ethnography? In: Silverman D, editor. Qualitative research. 4th ed.
London: Sage; 2016. p. 103–19.
Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.
Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, Barlow J, Black N, Bleakly A, . . . Ziebland S. An open
letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. Br Med J. 2016;352:i563.
Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, Marvasti AB, McKinney KD. Introduction: the complexity of the craft.
In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, Marvasti AB, McKinney KD, editors. The Sage handbook of
interview research: the complexity of the craft, Introduction section. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks:
Sage; 2012.
Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many
interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(4):591–608.
Hesse-Biber SN. The practice of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2017.
Houser J. Nursing research: reading, using, and crating evidence. 3rd ed. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett
Learning; 2015.
King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage; 2010.
Kvale S. Doing interviews. London: Sage; 2007.
24 P. Liamputtong

Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage;
2007.
Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 2010.
Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.
Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methodology and evidence-based practice in public health.
In: Liamputtong P, editor. Public health: local and global perspectives. Melbourne: Cambridge
University Press; 2016. p. 169–87.
Liamputtong P. The science of words and the science of numbers. In: Liamputtong P, editor.
Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 3–28.
Liamputtong P, Serry T. Making sense of qualitative data. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research
methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press; 2017. p. 421–36.
Liamputtong P, Haritavorn N, Kiatying-Angsulee N. Local discourse on antiretrovirals and the lived
experience of women living with HIV/AIDS in Thailand. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(2):253–63.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by
information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.
Marshall C, Rossman GB. Designing qualitative research. 6th ed. Thousand Osks: Sage; 2016.
Maschi T, Youdin R. Social worker as researcher: integrating research with advocacy. Boston:
Pearson; 2012.
Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2002.
Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. 4th ed.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016.
Mertens D. Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guildford Press; 2009.
Mills CW. The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1959.
Minichiello V, Aroni R, Hays T. In-depth interviewing: principles, techniques, analysis. 3rd ed.
Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia; 2008.
Morgan G. Images of organizations. Beverhill: Sage; 1986.
Morse JM. Data are saturated. . .. Qual Health Res. 2015a;25(5):587–8.
Morse JM. Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health
Res. 2015b;25(9):1212–22.
Morse JM. Reframing rigor in qualitative inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The Sage
handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018. p. 796–817.
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J.. Verification strategies for establi-
shing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1(2), Article 2.
www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/1_2Final/pdf/morseetal.pdf.
Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 7th ed. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon; 2011.
O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated
sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2012;13(2):190–7.
Olson K, Young RA, Schultz IZ. Handbook of qualitative health research for evidence-based
practice. New York: Springer; 2016.
Padgett DK. Qualitative methods in social work research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2008.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.
Raines JC. Evaluating qualitative research studies. In: Grinnell RM, Unrau YA, editors. Social work
research and evaluation: foundations of evidence-based practice. 9th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press; 2011. p. 488–503.
Rogers AG. When methods matter: qualitative research issues in psychology. In: Brizuela BM,
Stewart JP, Carrillo RG, Berger JG, editors. Acts of inquiry in qualitative research. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Educational Review; 2000. p. 51–60.
2 Qualitative Inquiry 25

Rossman GB, Rallis SF. Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. 4th ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2017.
Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage;
2012.
Russell J, Berney L, Stanfeld S, Lanz D, Kerry S, Chandola T, Bhui K. The role of qualitative
research in adding value to a randomized controlled trial: lessons from a pilot study of a guided
e-learning intervention for managers to improve employee wellbeing and reduce sickness
absence. Trials. 2016;17:396. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1497-8.
Sandelowski M. Using qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(10):1366–86.
Sankar A, Golin C, Simoni JM, Luborsky M, Pearson C. How qualitative methods contribute to
understanding combination antiretroviral therapy adherence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr.
2006;43(Supplement 1):S54–68.
Serry T, Liamputtong P. The in-depth interviewing method in health. In: Liamputtong P, editor.
Research methods in health: Foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 67–83.
Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 5th ed. London: Sage; 2017.
Sprague C, Scanlon ML, Pantalone DW. Qualitative research methods to advance research on
health inequities among previously incarcerated women living with HIV in Alabama. Health
Educ Behav. 2017;44(5):716–27.
Taylor SJ, Bogdan R, DeVault M. Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and
resource. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016.
Thirsk LM, Clark AM. Using qualitative research for complex interventions: the contributions of
hermeneutics. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917721068.
Tobin GA, Begley CM. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. J Adv Nurs.
2004;48(4):388–96.
Tolley EE. Qualitative methods in public health: a field guide for applied research. Hoboken:
Wiley; 2016.
Torrance H. Experimenting with qualitative inquiry. Qual Inq. 2017;23(1):69–76.
Toye F, Williamson E, Williams MA, Fairbank J, Lamb SE. What value can qualitative research add
to quantitative research design?: an example from an Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Trial
Feasibility Study. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1838–50.
White AH. Using samples to provide evidence. In: Schmidt NA, Brown JM, editors. Evidence-
based practice for nurses: appraisal and application of research. 3rd ed. Burlington: Jones &
Bartlett Learning; 2015. p. 294–319.
Wong P, Liamputtong P, Rawson H. Grounded theory in health research. In: Liamputtong P, editor.
Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 138–56.
Yardley L, Morrison L, Bradbury K, Muller I. The person-based approach to intervention devel-
opment: application to digital health-related behavior change interventions. J Med Internet Res.
2015;17(1):e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4055.
Yin RK. Qualitative research: from start to finish. 2nd ed. New York: Guildford Press; 2016.