Ian McCombes

CAN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS EVER OFFER MORE THAN SUBJECTIVE VIEWS OF EVENTS?

 
The use of qualitative research is acknowledged as being an increasingly important area in sports studies (Gratton and Jones, 2004). Even academic disciplines such as sport psychology, traditionally associated with positivist, quantitative approaches (Biddle et al, 2001; Gratton and Jones, 2004), have started to embrace the ‘rich’ information (Veal, 2006) provided by qualitative research. However, according to Sandelowski (1997, cited in Johnson and Waterfield, 2004:122) ‘there is still a sense of distrust of qualitative research, related to its perceived inability to produce useful and valid findings, beyond a supplementary role to quantitative research.’ In addition to this, qualitative research has been criticised for being too subjective (Patton, 1990) which according to Patton, ‘…has such negative connotations in the public mind that to openly advocate the value of subjective insight in evaluation research is to risk undermining the credibility of one’s work’ (1990:55). With these points in mind, this study aims to investigate whether qualitative research methods can successfully offer more than just subjective views of events. This will be achieved by firstly determining the meaning of qualitative research, and what methods are associated with this type of research. Following this, an investigation into the disadvantages and advantages of qualitative research will be conducted. A brief insight will then be offered into the ways in which the subjectivity of qualitative research can be both minimised and used to enhance the quality of research findings. Finally, two case studies will be used to further demonstrate that qualitative research can offer more than just subjective views of events.

 Qualitative research has its origins rooted in the interpretivist paradigm which according to Simon originated from the,

 Verstehen (empathy) tradition which contends that natural and social scientists must employ different methods of research, in other words, there is a difference between the subject matter of the social world and the subject matter of the natural world. Max Weber (1864-1920), the German economist and sociologist, argued that if social scientists were to understand the behaviour of individuals and groups, they should put themselves in the place (of) the subject of inquiry. (2006:13)

Unlike positivist, quantitative research, advocates of qualitative methods view the world as ever changing, and believe it is not a fixed or a measurable phenomenon (Merriam, 2002). Qualitative research addresses qualities that are often not quantifiable such as human emotions or experiences and thus ‘(i)nstead of trying to control extraneous variables, qualitative research takes the view that reality is socially constructed by each individual and should be interpreted rather than measured…’ (Johnson and Waterfield, 2004:123)

These qualitative approaches encompass a number of different methods, as supported by Carpender (1997) and Smith-Sebasto (2000) who argue that the term qualitative research is a ‘…poorly defined descriptor for a wide range of research activity that is underpinned by a number of different theoretical perspectives and methodologies’ (cited in Johnson and Waterfield, 2004:122). In light of this, it is believed necessary to investigate some of these theoretical perspectives and methodologies. Merriam (2002) references Patton (1990) as being able to identify ten orientations to qualitative research, whereas Cresswell (1998) identifies five “traditions”. More impressively, Tesch (1990) is able to list forty-five approaches ranging from case study to discourse analysis (ibid). In order to understand the diverse nature, and some of the advantages and disadvantages, of qualitative research three examples of qualitative methods are detailed below.

Firstly, ethnographic research is a strategy which originates from the field of anthropology (Merriam, 2002; Saunders et al, 2003), and was designed to study society and culture (Merriam, 2002). According to Veal, ‘…it seeks to see the world through the eyes of those being researched, allowing them to speak for themselves, often revealed through extensive direct quotation in the research report.’ (2006:205) Gratton and Jones add to this by stating,

Essentially, an ethnography involves the in-depth study of a group through immersion into the culture of that group, often for an extended period of time, using multiple methods of data collection. The aim is to understand the behaviour or culture of that group by seeing it through the perspective of members of the group themselves. This involves the researcher becoming part of the group under investigation. Data collection is much more flexible, and data is collected as and when appropriate from available sources. (2004:99)

Interestingly, Gratton and Jones (2004) also add that this type of research is becoming increasingly popular in social research into sport. However, it is recognised that this type of research is reliant on subjective views of the researcher.

The second example is the case study method, ‘which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon’ (Robson, 2002:178, cited in Saunders et al 2003:93). Within a sporting context this could feature a sports organisation, a school team, a sports team or an individual athlete (Gratton and Jones, 2004), and will usually involve ‘an intensive description and analysis’ (Merriam, 2002:9) of the phenomenon being investigated. A case study can feature a variety of research methods and can even include the use of quantitative evidence (Yin, 1994). ‘It is sometimes argued that the aim of case study research should be to capture cases in their uniqueness, rather than to use them as a basis for wider generalization or for theoretical inference of some kind’ (Hammersley and Gomm, 2000:3). However, like ethnographic study, this strategy is open to the researchers interpretations of events within the phenomenon.

Finally, postmodern research according to Merriam is a recent development in qualitative research and ‘is the infusion of a postmodern or poststructural perspective’ (2002:10) which ‘challenges the form and categories of traditional qualitative research’ (ibid). Bramham believes that ‘(w)ith post-modern thinking, the ideal of an orderly garden gives way to diversity and disorder’ (2001:10). Merriam states,

In contrast to the “modern” world, where reality is predictable, research is scientific, and there are assumed to be universal norms for truth and morality, the postmodern world is one of uncertainty, fragmentation, diversity, and plurality. There are many truths, and all generalizations, hierarchies, typologies, and binaries (good/bad, right/wrong, male/female, etc) are “contested”, “troubled”, or challenged. (2002:10)

The concept of a postmodern research project has no specific format to follow, and is open to an individual structure (Merriam, 2002). Denzin and Lincoln believe that postmodern researchers query whether experiences can be replicated accurately on paper, as they are often ‘created in the social text written by the researcher’ (2000:17). Despite this, ‘the postmodern perspective has found application in qualitative research through “solutions” (Bloland, 1995)…’ (Creswell, 1998:80) particularly in approaches such as critical theory and feminist theory (Creswell, 1998). Again this type of research alludes to the notion that qualitative approaches are susceptible to subjectivity on behalf of the researcher.

The qualitative approaches listed above all have the similar characteristics of being prone to subjectivity which can be viewed positively or negatively. According to Patton,

(o)bjectivity is traditionally considered the sine qua non of the scientific method [whereas] (t)o be subjective means to be biased, unreliable, and irrational. Subjective data imply opinion rather than fact, intuition rather than logic, impression rather than confirmation. (1990:479)

 However, this is not the only problem associated with this method of research. Issues such as bias, adequacy and credibility, ethical concerns, and the degree of participants’ involvement in the research (Olesen, 1994) have resulted in qualitative researchers being,

 …called journalists, or soft scientists. Their work is termed unscientific, or only exploratory, or entirely personal and full of bias. It is called criticism and not theory, or it is interpreted politically, as a disguised version of Marxism, or humanism. (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994:4)

Despite the criticisms highlighted above, qualitative research has a number of merits. Kelly (1980, cited in Veal, 2006) lists a number of advantages that he argues qualitative research has over quantitative research from a leisure perspective.

·         Qualitative research is consistent with the leisure phenomenon – i.e. leisure is deemed to be a qualitative experience

·         Qualitative material has the potential to attract people to leisure, whereas quantitative research is impersonal

·         People who are not statistically minded or trained are more likely to understand qualitative research

·         Qualitative research is more likely to stand the test of time as it can acknowledge peoples experiences and life history, whilst quantitative research tends to focus on current behaviour and trends.

·         Qualitative research is better suited to describing leisure activities as they often involve symbols and gestures between people.

·         Qualitative research is better equipped to understand the needs of people, and their aspirations.

 In addition, it is argued that there are a number of ways of reducing the disadvantages highlighted above in order to supplement the merits of qualitative research. In Pain and Harwood’s (2007) work on England youth soccer teams the authors employed two additional researchers to alleviate the biases that they believed they had created themselves due to their prior knowledge of the subject. To further validate their findings they also provided participants in their study with a copy of their respective transcript to verify the accuracy, and acknowledge fair representation and thus reduce subjectivity. Finally, the results were presented to the participants to test credibility.

 Smith and Stewart explore this last point in their work on ‘Sport Marketing Research’. They state that there are strategies that can be adopted to ‘improve the credibility of the results, and confirm the finding’ (2001:10). They believe that the researcher,

 …should always give appropriate space to respondents who, while on the surface, may be excessively different, may also provide especially insightful views. These extreme cases can provide a counter-balance to the researcher’s pre-dispositions, and challenge the views of the more conservative respondents (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Second, the researcher should aim to triangulate the data. This involves obtaining data from more than one source, and using more than one method to get it (Berg, 1998) (ibid).

Another example of minimising the subjectivity of qualitative research is provided by Oliver et al who believe that transcription is an important tool in qualitative research, but state that it can ‘…present real challenges to qualitative researchers’ (2005:1280). They believe that transcription usually incorporates one of two modes, either naturalism, where every possible detail is recorded including over-lapping talk, pauses, stutters etc, or denaturalism, where grammar is corrected, accents are standardised, and background noise is not detailed. It is argued here that the correct selection of a transcription technique can help to minimise subjectivity particularly on behalf of the researcher. Oliver et al argue that by using naturalized transcription,

…the analyst is presented with speech as it is spoken by the participant rather than overly-filtered through the transcriber. Schegloff (1997) states that when we attempt to stay true to the actual speech, we privilege participants’ words and avoid a priori assumptions (2005:1279).

Oliver et al also ‘…suggest that researchers incorporate reflection into their research design by interrogating their transcription decisions and the possible impact these decisions may have on participants and research outcomes’ (2005:1273).

An additional technique being used to reduce subjectivity, is reflexivity which according to Brackenridge (1999, p.399, cited in Gratton and Jones, 2004:186), ‘is becoming an increasingly important research skill’. Plymire states that,

Reflexivity is the process of foregrounding one’s participation in the research setting and evaluating how one’s social location, perspectives and biases, as well as one’s editorial choices, affect one’s representation of “reality”. Though the field researcher cannot and does not attempt to represent objective reality, the reflexive process is a substantial guard against more egregious misrepresentations of the indigenous perspective of the research subject (2005:156).

However, according to Johnson and Waterfield, ‘The inevitable subjectivity is a resource rather than a source of error or bias (Sim and Wright, 2000, p.134), and the researcher’s reflexivity lends plausibility to the findings’ (2004:128). They continue by stating,

Preconceptions are not the same as bias unless the researcher fails to identify them (Malterud, 2001). Indeed, Mays and Pope (2000) argue that personal and intellectual biases that are made explicit enhance the credibility of research findings. With the help of critical self-reflection, these subjective prejudices provide a basis from which further understanding develops (Angen, 2000) (ibid).

In other words, subjectivity can be an asset to qualitative research, and has the potential to enhance a study rather than discredit it. This is evident in Ollis et al’s ethnographic study of rugby refereeing, which will be studied in greater detail below, they state,

…while the primary researcher planned in great detail by adopting interview guides and observation checklists, the reflexivity at both the macro- and micro-levels of the study determined the richness and quality of feedback and data (2006:312).

 This work will now investigate two case studies in order to further illustrate that qualitative research can offer more than just subjective views of events. Both studies are taken from the ‘Journal of Sports Sciences’ and have already featured in this study. The first study, by Ollis, Macpherson and Collins (2006) is entitled, ‘Expertise and talent development in rugby refereeing: An ethnographic enquiry.

 The work by Ollis et al spanned an 18 month period working with the Rugby Football Union Elite Referee Unit, and was aimed at exploring, ‘…how expertise is obtained in the domain of rugby refereeing’ (2006:309). According to Ollis et al ‘…a key issue in the findings concerns a shift from “descriptive” towards a “non-linear process” –orientated model of development’ (ibid). However, it is the findings in relation to the methodology that is of more interest to this study. Ollis et al used ethnographic research to carry out the study due to recommendations from Starkes et al (2001) who believe that more field studies and more longitudinal research designs should be employed when carrying out research in expertise. The study combined what Erikson (1986) referred to as the two hallmarks of modern ethnography in-depth semi-structured interviews, and long-term participant observation (Ollis et al, 2006). Additionally, they adopted a variety of techniques such as casual conversations, assessment of coach report forms, footage of matches, focus groups, and so on. This wide-ranging variety of techniques has resulted in a very detailed methodology which Krane et al attributes to ‘…the still emergent nature of qualitative research’ (1997, cited in Biddle et al, 2001:793). Heron (1996) and Sparkes (1998) believe that this tendency is associated with ‘…the research community that is tied to positivist doctrines’ (cited in Biddle et al, 2001:793). However, it is argued here, and by Ollis et al (2006), that this in-depth process serves to bring trustworthiness and validity to the research. The case study illustrates how a number of techniques can be used successfully to ensure it remained valid, trustworthy and non-subjective. For example, a researcher with no prior knowledge of rugby or rugby refereeing was employed, potential biases were identified in the study, and transcription was performed as frequently, and accurately as possible. A “paper trail” was also established to ensure manageability of what the authors describe as ‘…the evolving complexity and dynamic characteristics of ethnographic enquiry’ (Ollis et al, 2006:314). During the data analysis triangulation was carried out, validity was checked with the participants, and an internal audit was used to check validity and trustworthiness. Finally, an independent audit was carried out, a staff colleague with ethnographic experience scrutinised the study, and the findings were presented to the participants to ensure validity.

 
The authors concluded, ‘the present study illustrates how the adoption of an ethnographic methodology gave a depth of analysis which could be difficult to replicate using another scientific form of methodology analysis’ (2006:320). They also added ‘…the synergy of the multi-perspective and pluralistic approach allowed the research questions to emerge and develop while solving the theoretical and empirical puzzles associated with research in expertise’ (ibid). However, to provide a balanced account Ollis et al (2006) also highlighted minor limitations relating to trustworthiness, credibility, confirmability, sensitivity to context, commitment, rigour, impact and importance, and finally, transparency and coherence.

 The second study by Pain and Harwood (2007) is entitled, ‘The performance environment of the England youth soccer teams’. This study used a ‘…semi-structured protocol with a prospective sample [of], national coaches (n = 6), sport scientists (n = 3), and players (n = 4), [who] were interviewed directly following international tournaments about the factors that positively and negatively influenced performance’ (2007:1307). The findings ‘..suggest the performance environment is multifaceted, with performance being contingent upon a broad range of interacting factors that go beyond the traditional psychosocial and physical domains’ (ibid). Although within a similar field to the previous case study, the content and methodology of Pain and Harwood’s work was arguably far less intricate than that of Ollis et al’s. However, the studies did have a number of similar factors. Firstly, Pain and Harwood (2007) were keen to reduce bias and thus, like Ollis et al, employed researchers who had no preconceived ideas. Secondly, procedures were validated independently at each stage until consensus was reached on any inconsistencies that occurred (Pain and Harwood, 2007). Thirdly, credibility was checked through consultation with the coaches about the findings. Fourthly, the participants were presented with transcripts to verify accuracy. Finally, the participants were presented with the result summaries to check credibility.

 The authors highlighted the fact that interviews took place only three weeks after tournaments as a positive factor in their research, especially as some previous studies (Gould et al, 2002) had interviewed athletes some 12 months after events (Pain and Harwood, 2007). The diversity of sources was also highlighted as an advantage in their research, this according to Pain and Harwood, ‘…greatly reduced the likelihood of overlooking factors in the overall environment’ (2007:1323). The authors believe that the ‘…sampling strategy, together with the prolonged engagement and use of thick description, helped enhance the credibility and transferability of the findings’ (2007:1323). The honesty of the players and coaches responses were questioned due to their employers, Football Association, involvement in the study. However, the authors draw attention to similar themes emerging as an indicator of this not being the case. Finally, the authors suggest that due to the variety of factors affecting the performance environment, ‘…future research should aim to quantify the impact of these factors to enable a more tangible assessment of the quality of the environment created’ (2007:1323).

 This last point is a valid one, as it would appear that the use of quantitative data is the perfect supplement to lend credibility to a qualitative piece of work. However, it would also seem that qualitative research is a useful way of supporting and giving meaning to quantitative research (Jayaratne, 1993, cited in Gratton and Jones, 2004; Smith and Stewart, 2001). Within a sporting context, specifically a study addressing physical activity and culture, Henderson et al. believe,

 Linking types of data provides a way to use statistics, the traditional language of research, along with anecdotes and narratives for further clarity in understanding physical activity involvement. Descriptive statistics do not tell the meanings of physical activity. In-depth interviews alone are not necessarily representative of the sample. Together, however, linking the data gives a bigger picture of some of the issues that described and mitigated the physical activity of these women of colour (1999, p.253, cited in Gratton and Jones, 2004:25).

 However, this approach also has its opponents as it is suggested that ‘the two forms are incompatible, as they rely on differing epistemological assumptions’ (ibid). 

 In summary, this study has offered an insight into the meaning of qualitative research, and has provided three examples of different methods, namely, ethnographic research, case study, and postmodern research. These methods were chosen to provide the reader with an indication of the diverse nature of qualitative methods available to the researcher. A brief overview of the disadvantages and advantages associated with qualitative research has also been provided. This was followed by an illustration of the different techniques available to help alleviate subjectivity in qualitative research. Lastly, two case studies were offered to demonstrate that qualitative research can offer more than just subjective views of events.

 Finally, in conclusion, it is believed that the debate surrounding subjectivity in qualitative research will never be resolved. However, as has been demonstrated in this study, if used correctly the issue of subjectivity can enhance a qualitative piece of work rather than undermine it.