case study difference between qualitative research

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Distinguishing case study as a research method from case reports as a publication type

• Kristine M. Alpi William R. Kenan, Jr. Library of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4521-3523
• John Jamal Evans North Carolina Community College System, Raleigh, NC

Author Biography

Kristine m. alpi, william r. kenan, jr. library of veterinary medicine, north carolina state university, raleigh, nc.

Akers KG, Amos K. Publishing case studies in health sciences librarianship [editorial]. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Apr;105(2):115–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.212 .

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2018.

Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2009.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2014.

Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2018.

Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1995.

Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1998.

Yazan B. Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Qual Rep. 2015;20(2):134–52.

Bartlett L, Vavrus F. Rethinking case study research: a comparative approach. New York, NY: Routledge; 2017.

Walsh RW. Exploring the case study method as a tool for teaching public administration in a cross-national context: pedagogy in theory and practice. European Group of Public Administration Conference, International Institute of Administrative Sciences; 2006.

National Library of Medicine. Case reports: MeSH descriptor data 2018 [Internet]. The Library [cited 1 Sep 2018]. < https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D002363 >.

National Library of Medicine. Organizational case studies: MeSH descriptor data 2018 [Internet]. The Library [cited 26 Oct 2018]. < https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D019982 >.

American Psychological Association. APA databases methodology field values [Internet]. The Association; 2016 [cited 1 Sep 2018]. < http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/training/method-values.aspx >.

ERIC. Case studies [Internet]. ERIC [cited 1 Sep 2018]. < https://eric.ed.gov/?ti=Case+Studies >.

Janke R, Rush K. The academic librarian as co-investigator on an interprofessional primary research team: a case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2014;31(2):116–22.

Clairoux N, Desbiens S, Clar M, Dupont P, St. Jean M. Integrating information literacy in health sciences curricula: a case study from Québec. Health Inf Libr J. 2013;30(3):201–11.

Federer L. The librarian as research informationist: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Oct;101(4):298–302. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.011 .

Medical Library Association. Journal of the Medical Library Association author guidelines: submission categories and format guidelines [Internet]. The Association [cited 1 Sep 2018]. < http://jmla.mlanet.org/ojs/jmla/about/submissions >.

Martin ER. Team effectiveness in academic medical libraries: a multiple case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Jul;94(3):271–8.

Hancock DR, Algozzine B. Doing case study research: a practical guide for beginning researchers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2017.

Current Issue

ISSN 1558-9439 (Online)

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

Patrik aspers.

1 Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

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

Qualitative and Quantitative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grounded Theory

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

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

Defining Qualitative Research

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

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

Distinctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improved Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Biographies

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

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

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Patrik Aspers, Email: [email protected] .

Ugo Corte, Email: [email protected] .

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

• Open access
• Published: 16 April 2024

How does the external context affect an implementation processes? A qualitative study investigating the impact of macro-level variables on the implementation of goal-oriented primary care

• Ine Huybrechts   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0288-1756 1 , 2 ,
• Anja Declercq 3 , 4 ,
• Emily Verté 1 , 2 ,
• Peter Raeymaeckers 5   na1 &
• Sibyl Anthierens 1   na1

on behalf of the Primary Care Academy

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  32 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Although the importance of context in implementation science is not disputed, knowledge about the actual impact of external context variables on implementation processes remains rather fragmented. Current frameworks, models, and studies merely describe macro-level barriers and facilitators, without acknowledging their dynamic character and how they impact and steer implementation. Including organizational theories in implementation frameworks could be a way of tackling this problem. In this study, we therefore investigate how organizational theories can contribute to our understanding of the ways in which external context variables shape implementation processes. We use the implementation process of goal-oriented primary care in Belgium as a case.

A qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews was conducted with actors from a variety of primary care organizations. Data was collected and analyzed with an iterative approach. We assessed the potential of four organizational theories to enrich our understanding of the impact of external context variables on implementation processes. The organizational theories assessed are as follows: institutional theory, resource dependency theory, network theory, and contingency theory. Data analysis was based on a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques using NVivo 12.

Institutional theory helps to understand mechanisms that steer and facilitate the implementation of goal-oriented care through regulatory and policy measures. For example, the Flemish government issued policy for facilitating more integrated, person-centered care by means of newly created institutions, incentives, expectations, and other regulatory factors. The three other organizational theories describe both counteracting or reinforcing mechanisms. The financial system hampers interprofessional collaboration, which is key for GOC. Networks between primary care providers and health and/or social care organizations on the one hand facilitate GOC, while on the other hand, technology to support interprofessional collaboration is lacking. Contingent variables such as the aging population and increasing workload and complexity within primary care create circumstances in which GOC is presented as a possible answer.

Conclusions

Insights and propositions that derive from organizational theories can be utilized to expand our knowledge on how external context variables affect implementation processes. These insights can be combined with or integrated into existing implementation frameworks and models to increase their explanatory power.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to literature

Knowledge on how external context variables affect implementation processes tends to be rather fragmented. Insights on external context in implementation research often remain limited to merely describing macro-context barriers and facilitators.

Organizational theories contribute to our understanding on the impact of external context to an implementation process by explaining the complex interactions between organizations and their environments.

Findings can be utilized to help explain the mechanism of change in an implementation process and can be combined with or integrated into existing implementation frameworks and models to gain a broader picture on how external context affects implementation processes.

In this study, we integrate organizational theories to provide a profound analysis on how external context influences the implementation of complex interventions. There is a growing recognition that the context in which an intervention takes place highly influences implementation outcomes [ 1 , 2 ]. Despite its importance, researchers are challenged by the lack of a clear definition of context. Most implementation frameworks and models do not define context as such, but describe categories or elements of context, without capturing it as a whole [ 2 , 3 ]. Studies often distinguish between internal and external context: micro- and meso-level internal context variables are specific to a person, team, or organization. Macro-level external context variables consist of variables on a broader, socio-economic and policy level that are beyond one’s control [ 4 ].

Overall, literature provides a rather fragmented and limited perspective on how external context influences the implementation process of a complex intervention. Attempts are made to define, categorize, and conceptualize external context [ 5 , 6 ]. Certain implementation frameworks and models specifically mention external context, such as the conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors [ 7 ], the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [ 8 ], or the i-PARiHS framework [ 9 ]. However, they remain limited to identifying and describing external context variables. Few studies are conducted that specifically point towards the actual impact of macro-level barriers and facilitators [ 10 , 11 , 12 ] but only provide limited insights in how these shape an implementation process. Nonetheless, external contextual variables can be highly disruptive for an organization’s implementation efforts, for example, when fluctuations in funding occur or when new legislation or technology is introduced [ 13 ]. In order to build a more comprehensive view on external context influences, we need an elaborative theoretical perspective.

Organizational theories as a frame of reference

To better understand how the external context affects the implementation process of a primary care intervention, we build upon research of Birken et al. [ 13 ] who demonstrate the explanatory power of organizational theories. Organizational theories can help explain the complex interactions between organizations and their environments [ 13 ], providing understanding on the impact of external context on the mechanism of change in an implementation process. We focus on three of the theories Birken et al. [ 8 ] put forward: institutional theory, resource dependency theory, and contingency theory. We also include network theory in recognition of the importance of interorganizational context and social ties between various actors, especially in primary care settings which are characterized by a multitude of diverse actors (meaning: participants of a process).

These four organizational theories demonstrate the ways in which organizations interact with their external environment in order to sustain and fulfill their core activities. All four of them do this with a different lens. Institutional theory states that an organization will aim to fulfil the expectations, values, or norms that are posed upon them in order to achieve a fit with their environment [ 14 ]. This theory helps to understand the relationships between organizations and actors and the institutional context in which they operate. Institutions can broadly be defined as a set of expectations for social or organizational behavior that can take the form formal structures such as regulatory entities, legislation, or procedures [ 15 ]. Resource dependency theory explains actions and decisions of organizations in terms of their dependence on critical and important resources. It postulates that organizations will respond to their external environment to secure the resources they need to operate [ 16 , 17 ]. This theory helps to gain insight in how fiscal variables can shape the adoption of an innovation. Contingency theory presupposes that an organizations’ effectiveness depends on the congruence between situational factors and organizational characteristics [ 18 ]. External context variables such as social and economic change and pressure can impact the way in which an innovation will be integrated. Lastly, network theory in its broader sense underlines the strength of networks: collaborating in networks can establish an effectiveness in which outcomes are achieved that could not be realized by individual organizations acting independently. Networks are about connecting or sharing information, resources, activities, and competences of three or more organizations aiming to achieve a shared goal or outcome [ 19 , 20 ]. Investigating networks helps to gain understanding of the importance of the interorganizational context and how social ties between organizations affect the implementation process of a complex intervention.

Goal-oriented care in Flanders as a case

In this study, we focus on the implementation of the approach goal-oriented care (GOC) in primary care in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region in Belgium. Primary care is a highly institutionalized and regulated setting with a high level of professionalism. Healthcare organizations can be viewed as complex adaptive systems that are increasingly interdependent [ 21 ]. The primary care landscape in Flanders is characterized by many primary care providers (PCPs) being either self-employed or working in group practices or community health centers. They are organized and financed at different levels (federal, regional, local). In 2015–2019, a primary care reform was initiated in Flanders in which the region was geographically divided into 60 primary care zones that are governed by care councils. The Flemish Institute of Primary Care was created as a supporting institution aiming to strengthen the collaboration between primary care health and welfare actors. The complex and multisectoral nature of primary care in Flanders forms an interesting setting to gain understanding in how macro-level context variables affect implementation processes.

The concept of GOC implies a paradigm shift [ 22 ] that shifts away from a disease or problem-oriented focus towards a person-centered focus that departs from “what matters to the patient.” Boeykens et al. [ 23 ] state in their concept analysis that GOC could be described as a healthcare approach encompassing a multifaceted, dynamic, and iterative process underpinned by the patient’s context and values. The process is characterized by three stages: goal elicitations, goal setting, and goal evaluation in which patients’ needs and preferences form the common thread. It is an approach in which PCPs and patients collaborate to identify personal life goals and to align care with those goals [ 23 ]. An illustration of how this manifests at individual level can be found in Table 1 . The concept of GOC was incorporated in Flemish policies and included in the primary care reform in 2015–2019. It has gained interest in research and policy as a potential catalyst for integrated care [ 24 ]. As such, the implementation of GOC in Flanders provides an opportunity to investigate the external context of a complex primary care intervention. Our main research question is as follows: what can organizational theories tell us about the influence of external context variables on the implementation process of GOC?

We assess the potential of four organizational theories to enrich our understanding of the impact of external context variables on implementation processes. The organizational theories assessed are as follows: institutional theory, resource dependency theory, network theory, and contingency theory. Qualitative research methods are most suitable to investigate such complex matters, as they can help answer “how” and “why” questions on implementation [ 25 ]. We conducted online, semi-structured in-depth interviews with various primary care actors. These actors all had some level of experience at either meso- or micro-level with GOC implementation efforts.

Sample selection

For our purposive sample, we used the following inclusion criteria: 1) working in a Flemish health/social care context in which initiatives are taken to implement GOC and 2) having at least 6 months of experience. For recruitment, we made an overview of all possible stakeholders that are active in GOC by calling upon the network of the Primary Care Academy (PCA) Footnote 1 . Additionally, a snowballing approach was used in which respondents could refer to other relevant stakeholders at the end of each interview. This leads to respondents with different backgrounds (not only medical) and varying roles, such as being a staff member, project coordinator, or policy maker. We aimed at a maximum variation in the type of organizations which were represented by respondents, such as different governmental institutions and a variety of healthcare/social care organizations. In some cases, paired interviews were conducted [ 26 ] if the respondents were considered complementary in terms of expertise, background, and experience with the topic. An information letter and a request to participate was send to each stakeholder by e-mail. One reminder was sent in case of nonresponse.

Data collection

Interviews were conducted between January and June 2022 by a sociologist trained in qualitative research methods. Interviewing took place online using the software Microsoft Teams and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A semi-structured interview guide was used, which included (1) an exploration of the concept of GOC and how the respondent relates to this topic, (2) questions on how GOC became a topic of interest and initiatives within the respondent’s setting, and (3) the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation. An iterative approach was used between data collection and data analysis, meaning that the interview guide underwent minor adjustments based on proceeding insights from earlier interviews in order to get richer data.

Data analysis

All data were thematically analyzed, both inductively and deductively, supported by the software NVivo 12©. For the inductive part, implicit and explicit ideas within the qualitative data were identified and described [ 27 ]. The broader research team, with backgrounds in sociology, medical sciences, and social work, discussed these initial analyses and results. The main researcher then further elaborated this into a broad understanding. This was followed by a deductive part, in which characteristics and perspectives from organizational theories were used as sensitizing concepts, inspired by research from Birken et al. [ 13 ]. This provided a frame of reference and direction, adding interpretive value to our analysis [ 28 ]. These analyses were subject of peer debriefing with our cooperating research team to validate whether these results aligned with their knowledge of GOC processes. This enhances the trustworthiness and credibility of our results [ 29 , 30 ]. Data analysis was done in Dutch, but illustrative quotes were translated into English.

In-depth interviews were performed with n = 23 respondents (see Table 2 ): five interviews were duo interviews, and one interview took place with n = 3 respondents representing one organization. We had n = 6 refusals: n = 3 because of time restraints, n = 1 did not feel sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic, n = 1 changed professional function, and there was n = 1 nonresponse. Respondents had various ways in which they related towards the macro-context: we included actors that formed part of external context (e.g., the Flemish Agency of Care and Health), actors that facilitate and strengthen organizations in the implementation of GOC (e.g., the umbrella organization for community health centers), and actors that actively convey GOC inside and outside their setting (e.g., an autonomous and integral home care service). Interviews lasted between 47 and 72 min. Table 3 gives an overview on the main findings of our deductive analysis with their respective links to the propositions of each of the organizational theories that we applied as a lens.

Institutional theory: laying foundations for a shift towards GOC

For the implementation of GOC in primary care, looking at the data with an institutional theory lens helps us understand the way in which primary care organizations will respond to social structures surrounding them. Institutional theory describes the influence of institutions, which give shape to organizational fields: “organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life [ 31 ], p. 148. Prevailing institutions within primary care in Flanders can affect how organizations within such organizational fields fulfil their activities. Throughout our interviews, we recognized several dynamics that are being described in institutional theory.

First of all, the changing landscape of primary care in Flanders (see 1.2) was often brought up as a dynamic in which GOC is intertwined with other changes. Respondents mention an overall tendency to reform primary care to becoming more integrated and the ideas of person-centered care becoming more upfront. These expectations in how primary care should be approached seem to affect the organizational field of primary care: “You could tell that in people’s minds they are ready to look into what it actually means to put the patient, the person central. — INT01” Various policy actors are committed to further steer towards these approaches: “the government has called it the direction that we all have to move towards. — INT23” It was part of the foundations for the most recent primary care reform, leading to the creation of demographic primary care zones governed by care councils and the Flemish Institute of Primary Care as supporting institution.

These newly established actors were viewed by our respondents as catalysts of GOC. They pushed towards the aims to depart from local settings and to establish connections between local actors. Overall, respondents emphasized their added value as they are close to the field and they truly connect primary care actors. “They [care councils] have picked up these concepts and have started working on it. At the moment they are truly the incubators and ecosystems, as they would call it in management slang. — INT04” For an innovation such as GOC to be diffused, they are viewed as the ideal actors who can function as a facilitator or conduit. They are uniquely positioned as they are closely in contact with the practice field and can be a top-down conduit for governmental actors but also are able to address the needs from bottom-up. “In this respect, people look at the primary care zones as the ideal partners. […] We can start bringing people together and have that helicopter view: what is it that truly connects you? — INT23” However, some respondents also mentioned their difficult governance structure due to representation of many disciplines and organizations.

Other regulatory factors were mentioned by respondents were other innovations or changes in primary care that were intentionally linked to GOC: e.g., the BelRAI Footnote 2 or Flemish Social Protection Footnote 3 . “The government also provides incentives. For example, family care services will gradually be obliged to work with the BelRAI screener. This way, you actually force them to start taking up GOC. — INT23” For GOC to be embedded in primary care, links with other regulatory requirements can steer PCPs towards GOC. Furthermore, it was sometimes mentioned that an important step would be for the policy level to acknowledge GOC as quality of care and to include the concept in quality standards. This would further formalize and enforce the institutional expectation to go towards person-centered care.

Currently, a challenge on institutional level as viewed by most respondents is that GOC is not or only to a limited extent incorporated in the basic education of most primary care disciplines. This leads to most of PCPs only having a limited understanding of GOC and different disciplines not having a shared language in this matter. “You have these primary health and welfare actors who each have their own approach, history and culture. To bring them together and to align them is challenging. — INT10” The absence of GOC as a topic in basic education is mentioned by various respondents as a current shortcoming in effectively implementing GOC in the wider primary care landscape.

Overall, GOC is viewed as our respondents as a topic that has recently gained a lot interest, both by individual PCPS, organizations, and governmental actors. The Flemish government has laid some foundations to facilitate this change with newly created institutions and incentives. However, other external context variables can interfere in how the concept of GOC is currently being picked up and what challenges arise.

Resource dependency theory: in search for a financial system that accommodates interprofessional collaboration

Another external context variable that affects how GOC can be introduced is the financial system that is at place. To analyze themes that were raised during the interviews with regard to finances, we utilized a resource dependency perspective. This theory presumes that organizations are dependent on financial resources and are seeking ways to ensure their continued functioning [ 16 , 17 ]. To a certain extent, this collides with the assumptions of institutional theory that foregrounds organization’s conformity to institutional pressures [ 32 ]. Resource dependency theory in contrast highlights differentiation of organizations that seek out competitive advantages [ 32 ].

In this context, respondents mention that their interest and willingness to move towards a GOC approach are held back by the current dominant system of pay for performance in the healthcare system. This financial system is experienced as restrictive, as it does not provide any incentive to PCPs for interprofessional collaboration, which is key for GOC. A switch to a flat fee system (in which a fixed fee is charged for each patient) or bundled payment was often mentioned as desirable. PCPs and health/social care organizations working in a context where they are financially rewarded for a trajectory or treatment of a patient in its entirety ensure that there is no tension with their necessity to obtain financial resources, as described in the resource dependency theory. Many of our respondents voice that community health centers are a good example. They cover different healthcare disciplines and operate with a fixed price per enrolled patient, regardless of the number of services for that patient. This promotes setting up preventive and health-promoting actions, which confirms our finding on the relevance of dedicated funding.

At the governmental level, the best way to finance and give incentives is said to be a point of discussion: “For years, we have been arguing about how to finance. Are we going to fund counsel coordination? Or counsel organization? Or care coordination? — INT04” Macro-level respondents do however mention financial incentives that are already in place to stimulate interprofessional collaboration: fees for multidisciplinary consultation being the most prominent. Other examples were given in which certain requirements were set for funding (e.g., Impulseo Footnote 4 , VIPA Footnote 5 ) that stimulate actors or settings in taking steps towards more interprofessional collaboration.

Nowadays, financial incentives to support organizations to engage in GOC tend to be project grants. However, a structural way to finance GOC approaches is currently lacking, according to our respondents. As a consequence, a long-term perspective for organizations is lacking; there is no stable financing and organizations are obliged to focus on projects instead of normalizing GOC in routine practice. According to a resource dependency perspective, the absence of financial incentives for practicing GOC hinders organizations in engaging with the approach, as they are focused on seeking out resources in order to fulfil their core activities.

A network-theory perspective: the importance of connectedness for the diffusion of an innovation

Throughout the interviews, interorganizational contextual elements were often addressed. A network theory lens states that collaborating in networks can lead to outcomes that could not be realized by individual organizations acting independently [ 19 , 20 ]. Networks consist of a set of actors such as PCPs or health/social care organizations along with a set of ties that link them [ 33 ]. These ties can be state-type ties (e.g., role based, cognitive) or event-type ties (e.g., through interactions, transactions). Both type of ties can enable a flow in which information or innovations can pass, as actors interact [ 33 ]. To analyze the implementation process of GOC and how this is diffused through various actors, a network theory perspective can help understand the importance of the connection between actors.

A first observation throughout the interviews in which we notice the importance of networks was in the mentioning of local initiatives that already existed before the creation of the primary care zones/care councils. In the area around Ghent, local multidisciplinary networks already organized community meetings, bringing together different PCPs on overarching topics relating to long-term care for patients with chronic conditions. These regions have a tradition of collaboration and connectedness of PCPs, which respondents mention to be highly valuable: “This ensures that we are more decisive, speaking from one voice with regards to what we want to stand for. — INT23” Respondents voice that the existence of such local networks has had a positive effect on the diffusion of ideas such as GOC, as trust between different actors was already established.

Further mentioning of the importance of networks could be found in respondents acknowledging one of the presumptions of network theory: working collaboratively towards a specific objective leads to outcomes that cannot be realized independently. This is especially true for GOC, an approach that in essence requires different disciplines to work together: “When only one GP, nurse or social worker starts working on it, it makes no sense. Everyone who is involved with that person needs to be on board. Actually, you need to finetune teams surrounding a person — INT11.” This is why several policy-level respondents mentioned that emphasis was placed on organizing GOC initiatives in a neighborhood-oriented way, in which accessible, inclusive care is aimed at by strengthening social cohesion. This way, different types of PCPs got to know each other through these sessions an GOC and would start to get aligned on what it means to provide GOC. However, in particular, self-employed PCPs are hard to reach. According to our respondents, occupational groups and care councils are suitable actors to engage these self-employed PCPs, but they are not always much involved in such a network .

To better connect PCPs and health/social care organizations, the absence of connectedness through the technological landscape is also mentioned. Current technological systems and platforms for documenting patient information do not allow for aligning and sharing between disciplines. In Flanders, there is a history of each discipline developing its own software, which lacks centralization or unification: “For years, they have decided to just leave it to the market, in such a way that you ended up with a proliferation of software, each discipline having its own package. — INT06” Most of the respondents mentioning this were aware that Flanders government is currently working on a unified digital care and support platform and were optimistic about its development.

Contingency theory: how environmental pressure can be a trigger for change

Our interviews were conducted during a rather dynamic and unique period of time in which the impact of social change and pressure was clearly visible: the Flemish primary care reform was ongoing which leads to the creation of care councils and VIVEL (see 3.1.1), and the COVID crisis impacted the functioning of these and other primary care actors. These observed effects of societal changes are reminiscent of the assumptions that are made in contingency theory. In essence, contingency theory presupposes that “organizational effectiveness results from fitting characteristics of the organization, such as its structure, to contingencies that reflect the situation of the organization [ 34 ], p. 1.” When it comes to the effects of the primary care reform and the COVID crisis, there were several mentions on how primary care actors reorganized their activities to adapt to these circumstances. Representatives of care councils/primary care zones whom we interviewed underlined that they were just at the point where they could again engage with their original action plans, not having to take up so many COVID-related tasks anymore. On the one hand, the COVID crisis had however forced them to immediately become functional and has also contributed that various primary care actors quickly got to know them. On the other hand, the COVID crisis has also kept them from their core activities for a while. On top of that, the crisis has also triggered a change the overall view towards data sharing. Some respondents mention a rather protectionist approach towards data sharing, while data sharing has become more normalized during the COVID crisis. This discussion was also relevant for the creation of a unified shared patient record in terms of documenting and sharing patient goals.

Other societal factors that were mentioned having an impact on the uptake of GOC are the demographic composition of a certain area. It was suggested that areas that are characterized by a patient population with more chronic care needs will be more likely to steer towards GOC as a way of coping with these complex cases. “You always have these GPs who blow it away immediately and question whether this is truly necessary. They will only become receptive to this when they experience needs for which GOC can be a solution — INT11.” On a macro-level, several respondents have mentioned how a driver for change is to have the necessity for change becoming very tangible. As PCPs are confronted with increasing numbers of patients with complex, chronic needs and their work becomes more demanding, the need for change becomes more acute. This finding is in line with what contingency theory underlines: changes in contingency (e.g., the population that is increasingly characterized by aging and multimorbidity) are an impetus for change for health/social care organizations to resolve this by adopting a structure that better fits the current environmental characteristics [ 34 ].

Our research demonstrates the applicability of organizational theories to help explain the impact that macro-level context variables have on an implementation process. These insights can be integrated into existing implementation frameworks and models to add the explanatory power of macro-level context variables, which is to date often neglected. The organizational theories demonstrate the ways in which organizations interact with their external environment in order to sustain and fulfill their core activities. As demonstrated in Fig. 1 , institutional theory largely explains how social expectations in the form of institutions lead towards the adoption or implementation of innovation, such as GOC. However, other organizational theories demonstrate how other macro-context elements on different areas can either strengthen or hamper the implementation process.

How organizational theories can help explain the way in which macro-level context variables affect implementation of an intervention

Departing from the mechanisms that are postulated by institutional theory, we observed that the shift towards GOC is part of a larger Flemish primary care reform in which and new institutions have been established and polices have been drawn up to go towards more integrated, person-centered care. To achieve this, governmental actors have placed emphasis on socialization of care, the local context, and establishing ties between organizations in order to become more complementary in providing primary health care [ 35 ]. With various initiatives surrounding this aim, the Flemish government is steering towards GOC. This is reminiscent of the mechanisms that are posed within institutional theory: organizations adapt to prevailing norms and expectations and mimic behaviors that are surrounding them [ 15 , 36 ].

Throughout our data, we came across concrete examples of how institutionalization takes place. DiMaggio and Powell [ 31 ] describe the subsequent process of isomorphism: organizations start to resemble each other as they are conforming to their institutional environment. A first mechanism through which this change occurs is coercive isomorphism and is clearly noticeable in our data. This type of isomorphism results from both formal and informal pressure coming from organizations from which a dependency relationship exists and from cultural expectations in the society [ 31 ]. Person-centered, GOC care is both formally propagated by governmental institutions and procedures and informally expected by current social tendencies. Care councils within primary care zones explicitly propagate and disseminate ideas and approaches that are desirable on policy level. Another form of isomorphism is professional isomorphism and relates to our finding that incorporation of GOC in basic education is currently lacking. The presumptions of professional isomorphism back up the importance of this: values, norms, and ideas that are developed during education are bound to find entrance within organizations as professionals start operating along these views.

Although many observations in our data back up the assumptions of institutional theory, it should be noticed that new initiatives such as the promotion of person-centered care and GOC can collide with earlier policy trends. Martens et al. [ 12 ] have examined the Belgian policy process relating three integrated care projects and concluded that although there is a strong support for a change towards a more patient-centered system, the current provider-driven system and institutional design complicate this objective. Furthermore, institutional theory tends to simplify actors as passive adopters of institutional norms and expectations and overlook the human agency and sensemaking that come with it [ 37 ]. For GOC, it is particularly true that PCPs will actively have to seek out their own style and fit the approach in their own way of working. Moreover, GOC was not just addressed as a governmental expectation but for many PCPs something they inherently stood behind.

Resources dependency theory poses that organizations are dependent on critical resources and adapt their way of working in response to those resources [ 17 ]. From our findings, it seems that the current financial system does not promote GOC, meaning that the mechanisms that are put forward in resources dependency theory are not set in motion. A macro-level analysis of barriers and facilitators in the implementation of integrated care in Belgium by Danhieux et al. [ 10 ] also points towards the financial system and data sharing as two of the main contextual determinants that affect implementation.

Throughout our data, the importance of a network approach was frequently mentioned. Interprofessional collaboration came forward as a prerequisite to make GOC happen, as well as active commitment on different levels. Burns, Nembhard, and Shortell [ 38 ] argue that research efforts on implementing person-centered, integrated care should have more focus on the use of social networks to study relational coordination. In terms of interprofessional collaboration, to date, Belgium has a limited tradition of working team-based with different disciplines [ 35 ]. However, when it comes to strengthening a cohesive primary care network, the recently established care councils have become an important facilitator. As a network governance structure, they resemble mostly a Network Administrative Organization (NAO): a separate, centralized administrative entity that is externally governed and not another member providing its own services [ 19 ]. According to Provan and Kenis [ 19 ], this type of governance form is most effective in a rather dense network with many participants, when the goal consensus is moderately high, characteristics that are indeed representative for the Flemish primary care landscape. This strengthens our observation that care councils have favorable characteristics and are well-positioned to facilitate the interorganizational context to implement GOC.

Lastly, the presumptions within contingency theory became apparent as respondents talked about how the need for change needs to become tangible for PCPs and organizations to take action, as they are increasingly faced with a shortage of time and means and more complex patient profiles. Furthermore, De Maeseneer [ 39 ] affirms our findings that the COVID-19 crisis could be employed as an opportunity to strengthen primary health care, as health becomes prioritized and its functioning becomes re-evaluated. Overall, contingency theory can help gain insight in how and why certain policy trends or decisions are made. A study of Bruns et al. [ 40 ] found that modifiable external context variables such as interagency collaboration were predictive for policy support for intervention adoption, while unmodifiable external context variable such as socio-economic composition of a region was more predictive for fiscal investments that are made.

Strengths and limitations

This study contributes to our overall understanding of implementation processes by looking into real-life implementation efforts for GOC in Flanders. It goes beyond a mere description of external context variables that affect implementation processes but aims to grasp which and how external context variables influence implementation processes. A variety of respondents from different organizations, with different backgrounds and perspectives, were interviewed, and results were analyzed by researchers with backgrounds in sociology, social work, and medical sciences. Results can not only be applied to further develop sustainable implementation plans for GOC but also enhance our understanding of how the external context influences and shapes implementation processes. As most research on contextual variables in implementation processes has until now mainly focused on internal context variables, knowledge on external context variables contributes to gaining a bigger picture of the mechanism of change.

However, this study is limited to the Flemish landscape, and external context variables and their dynamics might differ from other regions or countries. Furthermore, our study has examined and described how macro-level context variables affect the overall implementation processes of GOC. Further research is needed on the link between outer and inner contexts during implementation and sustainment, as explored by Lengninck-Hall et al. [ 41 ]. Another important consideration is that our sample only includes the “believers” in GOC and those who are already taking steps towards its implementation. It is possible that PCPs themselves or other relevant actors who are more skeptical about GOC have a different view on the policy and organizational processes that we explored. Furthermore, data triangulations in which this data is complemented with document analysis could have expanded our understanding and verified subjective perceptions of respondents.

Insights and propositions that derive from organizational theories can be utilized to expand our knowledge on how external context variables affect implementation processes. Our research demonstrates that the implementation of GOC in Flanders is steered and facilitated by regulatory and policy variables, which sets in motion mechanisms that are described in institutional theory. However, other external context variables interact with the implementation process and can further facilitate or hinder the overall implementation process. Assumptions and mechanisms explained within resource dependency theory, network theory, and contingency theory contribute to our understanding on how fiscal, technological, socio-economic, and interorganizational context variables affect an implementation process.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality guaranteed to participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The Primary Care Academy (PCA) is a research and teaching network of four Flemish universities, six university colleges, the White and Yellow Cross (an organization for home nursing), and patient representatives that have included GOC as one of their main research domains.

BelRAI, the Belgian implementation of the interRAI assessment tools; these are scientific, internationally validated instruments enabling an assessment of social, psychological, and physical needs and possibilities of individuals in different care settings. The data follows the person and is shared between care professionals and care organizations.

The Flemish Social Protection is a mandatory insurance established by the Flemish government to provide a range of concessions to individuals with long-term care and support needs due to illness or disability.

Impulseo, financial support for general practitioners who start an individual practice or join a group practice

VIPA, grants for the realization of sustainable, accessible, and affordable healthcare infrastructure

Abbreviations

• Goal-oriented care

Primary care provider

Primary Care Academy

Squires JE, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Michie S, Francis JJ, Sales A, et al. Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):1–21.

Rogers L, De Brún A, McAuliffe E. Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1–24.

Huybrechts I, Declercq A, Verté E, Raeymaeckers P, Anthierens S. The building blocks of implementation frameworks and models in primary care: a narrative review. Front Public Health. 2021;9:675171.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hamilton AB, Mittman BS, Eccles AM, Hutchinson CS, Wyatt GE. Conceptualizing and measuring external context in implementation science: studying the impacts of regulatory, fiscal, technological and social change. Implement Sci. 2015;10 BioMed Central.

Watson DP, Adams EL, Shue S, Coates H, McGuire A, Chesher J, et al. Defining the external implementation context: an integrative systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–14.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38:4–23.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15.

Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2015;11(1):1–13.

Danhieux K, Martens M, Colman E, Wouters E, Remmen R, Van Olmen J, et al. What makes integration of chronic care so difficult? A macro-level analysis of barriers and facilitators in Belgium. International. J Integr Care. 2021;21(4).

Hamilton AB, Mittman BS, Campbell D, Hutchinson C, Liu H, Moss NJ, Wyatt GE. Understanding the impact of external context on community-based implementation of an evidence-based HIV risk reduction intervention. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–10.

Martens M, Danhieux K, Van Belle S, Wouters E, Van Damme W, Remmen R, et al. Integration or fragmentation of health care? Examining policies and politics in a Belgian case study. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(9):1668.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Birken SA, Bunger AC, Powell BJ, Turner K, Clary AS, Klaman SL, et al. Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–15.

Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press; 2012.

Google Scholar  

Zucker LG. Institutional theories of organization. Annu Rev Sociol. 1987;13(1):443–64.

Hillman AJ, Withers MC, Collins BJ. Resource dependence theory: a review. J Manag. 2009;35(6):1404–27.

Nienhüser W. Resource dependence theory-how well does it explain behavior of organizations? Management Revue; 2008. p. 9–32.

Lammers CJ, Mijs AA, Noort WJ. Organisaties vergelijkenderwijs: ontwikkeling en relevantie van het sociologisch denken over organisaties. Het Spectrum. 2000;6.

Provan KG, Kenis P. Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18(2):229–52.

Kenis P, Provan K. Het network-governance-perspectief. Business performance management Sturen op prestatie en resultaat; 2008. p. 296–312.

Begun JW, Zimmerman B, Dooley K. Health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. Adv Health Care Org Theory. 2003;253:288.

Mold JW. Failure of the problem-oriented medical paradigm and a person-centered alternative. Ann Fam Med. 2022;20(2):145–8.

Boeykens D, Boeckxstaens P, De Sutter A, Lahousse L, Pype P, De Vriendt P, et al. Goal-oriented care for patients with chronic conditions or multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review and concept analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0262843.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gray CS, Grudniewicz A, Armas A, Mold J, Im J, Boeckxstaens P. Goal-oriented care: a catalyst for person-centred system integration. Int J Integr Care. 2020;20(4).

Hamilton AB, Finley EP. Qualitative methods in implementation research: an introduction. Psychiatry Res. 2019;280:112516.

Wilson AD, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Manning LP. Using paired depth interviews to collect qualitative data. Qual Rep. 2016;21(9):1549.

Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications; 2011.

Bowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):12–23.

Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nurs. 2016;25(6):435.

Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1(2):13–22.

DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev. 1983;147-60.

de la Luz F-AM, Valle-Cabrera R. Reconciling institutional theory with organizational theories: how neoinstitutionalism resolves five paradoxes. J Organ Chang Manag. 2006;19(4):503–17.

Borgatti SP, Halgin DS. On network theory. Organ Sci. 2011;22(5):1168–81.

Donaldson L. The contingency theory of organizations. Sage; 2001.

Book   Google Scholar  

De Maeseneer J, Galle A. Belgium’s healthcare system: the way forward to address the challenges of the 21st century: comment on “Integration or Fragmentation of Health Care? Examining Policies and Politics in a Belgian Case Study”. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12.

Dadich A, Doloswala N. What can organisational theory offer knowledge translation in healthcare? A thematic and lexical analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–20.

Jensen TB, Kjærgaard A, Svejvig P. Using institutional theory with sensemaking theory: a case study of information system implementation in healthcare. J Inf Technol. 2009;24(4):343–53.

Burns LR, Nembhard IM, Shortell SM. Integrating network theory into the study of integrated healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114664.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

De Maeseneer J. COVID-19: using the crisis as an opportunity to strengthen primary health care. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2021;22:e73.

Bruns EJ, Parker EM, Hensley S, Pullmann MD, Benjamin PH, Lyon AR, Hoagwood KE. The role of the outer setting in implementation: associations between state demographic, fiscal, and policy factors and use of evidence-based treatments in mental healthcare. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1–13.

Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Dickson KS, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Forms and functions of bridging factors: specifying the dynamic links between outer and inner contexts during implementation and sustainment. Implement Sci. 2021;16:1–13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the partnership with the Primary Care Academy (academie-eerstelijn.be) and want to thank the King Baudouin Foundation and Fund Daniël De Coninck for the opportunity they offer us for conducting research and have impact on the primary care of Flanders, Belgium. The consortium of the Primary Care Academy consists of the following: lead author: Roy Remmen—[email protected]—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Emily Verté—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium, and Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium; Muhammed Mustafa Sirimsi—Centre for Research and Innovation in Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Peter Van Bogaert—Workforce Management and Outcomes Research in Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium; Hans De Loof—Laboratory of Physio-Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium; Kris Van den Broeck—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Sibyl Anthierens—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Ine Huybrechts—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Peter Raeymaeckers—Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium; Veerle Bufel—Department of Sociology, Centre for Population, Family and Health, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium; Dirk Devroey—Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel; Bert Aertgeerts—Academic Centre for General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven; Birgitte Schoenmakers—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Lotte Timmermans—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Veerle Foulon—Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Faculty Pharmaceutical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Anja Declercq—LUCAS-Centre for Care Research and Consultancy, Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Dominique Van de Velde, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium, and Department of Occupational Therapy, Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, Ghent, Belgium; Pauline Boeckxstaens—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium; An De Sutter—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium; Patricia De Vriendt—Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium, and Frailty in Ageing (FRIA) Research Group, Department of Gerontology and Mental Health and Wellbeing (MENT) Research Group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium, and Department of Occupational Therapy, Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, Ghent, Belgium; Lies Lahousse—Department of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Peter Pype—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium, End-of-Life Care Research Group, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Dagje Boeykens—Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium, and Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium; Ann Van Hecke—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium, University Centre of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium; Peter Decat—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium; Rudi Roose—Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University Ghent, Belgium; Sandra Martin—Expertise Centre Health Innovation, University College Leuven-Limburg, Leuven, Belgium; Erica Rutten—Expertise Centre Health Innovation, University College Leuven-Limburg, Leuven, Belgium; Sam Pless—Expertise Centre Health Innovation, University College Leuven-Limburg, Leuven, Belgium; Anouk Tuinstra—Expertise Centre Health Innovation, University College Leuven-Limburg, Leuven, Belgium; Vanessa Gauwe—Department of Occupational Therapy, Artevelde University of Applied Sciences, Ghent, Belgium; Didier ReynaertE-QUAL, University College of Applied Sciences Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; Leen Van Landschoot—Department of Nursing, University of Applied Sciences Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; Maja Lopez Hartmann—Department of Welfare and Health, Karel de Grote University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Antwerp, Belgium; Tony Claeys—LiveLab, VIVES University of Applied Sciences, Kortrijk, Belgium; Hilde Vandenhoudt—LiCalab, Thomas University of Applied Sciences, Turnhout, Belgium; Kristel De Vliegher—Department of Nursing–Homecare, White-Yellow Cross, Brussels, Belgium; and Susanne Op de Beeck—Flemish Patient Platform, Heverlee, Belgium.

This research was funded by fund Daniël De Coninck, King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium. The funder had no involvement in this study. Grant number: 2019-J5170820-211,588.

Author information

Peter Raeymaeckers and Sibyl Anthierens have contributed equally to this work and share senior last authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Doornstraat 331, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium

Ine Huybrechts, Emily Verté & Sibyl Anthierens

Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Jette/Brussels, Belgium

Ine Huybrechts & Emily Verté

LUCAS — Centre for Care Research and Consultancy, KU Leuven, Minderbroedersstraat 8/5310, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

Anja Declercq

Center for Sociological Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45/3601, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

Department of Social Work, University of Antwerp, St-Jacobstraat 2, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

Peter Raeymaeckers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• , Emily Verté
• , Muhammed Mustafa Sirimsi
• , Peter Van Bogaert
• , Hans De Loof
• , Kris Van den Broeck
• , Sibyl Anthierens
• , Ine Huybrechts
• , Peter Raeymaeckers
• , Veerle Bufel
• , Dirk Devroey
• , Bert Aertgeerts
• , Birgitte Schoenmakers
• , Lotte Timmermans
• , Veerle Foulon
• , Anja Declerq
• , Dominique Van de Velde
• , Pauline Boeckxstaens
• , An De Sutter
• , Patricia De Vriendt
• , Lies Lahousse
• , Peter Pype
• , Dagje Boeykens
• , Ann Van Hecke
• , Peter Decat
• , Rudi Roose
• , Sandra Martin
• , Erica Rutten
• , Sam Pless
• , Anouk Tuinstra
• , Vanessa Gauwe
• , Leen Van Landschoot
• , Maja Lopez Hartmann
• , Tony Claeys
• , Hilde Vandenhoudt
• , Kristel De Vliegher
•  & Susanne Op de Beeck

Contributions

IH wrote the main manuscript text. AD, EV, PR, and SA contributed to the different steps of the making of this manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ine Huybrechts .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Antwerp/Antwerp University Hospital (reference: 2021-1690). All participants received verbal and written information about the purpose and methods of the study and gave written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Huybrechts, I., Declercq, A., Verté, E. et al. How does the external context affect an implementation processes? A qualitative study investigating the impact of macro-level variables on the implementation of goal-oriented primary care. Implementation Sci 19 , 32 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01360-0

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2024

Accepted : 28 March 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01360-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Contingency theory
• External context
• Institutional theory
• Primary care
• Implementation process
• Macro-context
• Network theory
• Organizational theories
• Resource dependency theory

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• Does the case represent an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• Does the case provide important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• Does the case challenge and offer a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in practice. A case may offer you an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to the study a case in order to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• Does the case provide an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings in order to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• Does the case offer a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for exploratory research that points to a need for further examination of the research problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of Uganda. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a particular village can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community throughout rural regions of east Africa. The case could also point to the need for scholars to apply feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work. In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What was I studying? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why was this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the research problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would include summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to study the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in the context of explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that frames your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; c) what were the consequences of the event.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of his/her experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using him or her as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, cultural, economic, political, etc.], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, why study Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research reveals Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is more common to combine a description of the findings with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings It is important to remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and needs for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1)  restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were on social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood differently than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Essays
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

Difference Between Case Study And Narrative Research

• Success Team
• January 19, 2023

Top-Rated AI Meeting Assistant With Incredible ChatGPT & Qualitative Data Analysis Capabilities

Join 150,000+ individuals and teams who rely on speak ai to capture and analyze unstructured language data for valuable insights. streamline your workflows, unlock new revenue streams and keep doing what you love..

Get a 7-day fully-featured trial!

Research is an important part of any organization or business. There are two main types of research: case studies and narrative research. Both are valuable tools for gathering and analyzing information, but they have some important differences. Understanding the difference between case study and narrative research can help you select the best research method for your particular project.

What is Case Study Research?

Case study research is a type of qualitative research that focuses on a single case, or a small number of cases, to examine in depth. It seeks to understand a phenomenon by examining the context of the case and looking at the experiences, perspectives, and behavior of the people involved. Case study research is often used to explore complex social phenomena, such as poverty, health, education, and social change.

What is Narrative Research?

Narrative research is also a type of qualitative research that focuses on understanding how people make sense of their experiences. It involves collecting and analyzing stories, or narratives, from participants. These stories can be collected through interviews, focus groups, or other data collection techniques. By examining the stories in detail, researchers can gain insights into how people think about and make sense of the world around them.

Differences Between Case Study and Narrative Research

The most important differences between case study and narrative research are the focus and the type of data collected. Case studies focus on a single case or a small number of cases, while narrative research focuses on understanding how people make sense of their experiences. Case studies typically rely on quantitative data, such as surveys and measurements, while narrative research relies on qualitative data, such as interviews, stories, and observations.

Which is Better?

The answer to this question depends on the research question and the type of data needed to answer it. If the goal is to understand a single case in depth, then a case study is the best approach. If the goal is to understand how people make sense of their experiences, then narrative research is the best approach. In some cases, it may be beneficial to use a combination of both approaches.

Case study and narrative research are both valuable tools for gathering and analyzing information. Understanding the difference between the two can help you select the best research method for your particular project. While case studies are useful for understanding a single case in depth, narrative research is better for understanding how people make sense of their experiences. In some cases, it may be beneficial to use a combination of both approaches.

How To Use The Best Large Language Models For Research With Speak

Step 1: Create Your Speak Account

To start your transcription and analysis, you first need to create a Speak account . No worries, this is super easy to do!

Get a 7-day trial with 30 minutes of free English audio and video transcription included when you sign up for Speak.

To sign up for Speak and start using Speak Magic Prompts, visit the Speak app register page here .

Step 2: Upload Your Research Data

We typically recommend MP4s for video or MP3s for audio.

However, we accept a range of audio, video and text file types.

You can upload your file for transcription in several ways using Speak:

Accepted Audio File Types

Accepted video file types, accepted text file types, csv imports.

You can also upload CSVs of text files or audio and video files. You can learn more about CSV uploads and download Speak-compatible CSVs here .

With the CSVs, you can upload anything from dozens of YouTube videos to thousands of Interview Data.

Publicly Available URLs

You can also upload media to Speak through a publicly available URL.

As long as the file type extension is available at the end of the URL you will have no problem importing your recording for automatic transcription and analysis.

YouTube URLs

Speak is compatible with YouTube videos. All you have to do is copy the URL of the YouTube video (for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKfcLcHeivc ).

Speak will automatically find the file, calculate the length, and import the video.

If using YouTube videos, please make sure you use the full link and not the shortened YouTube snippet. Additionally, make sure you remove the channel name from the URL.

Speak Integrations

As mentioned, Speak also contains a range of integrations for Zoom , Zapier , Vimeo and more that will help you automatically transcribe your media.

This library of integrations continues to grow! Have a request? Feel encouraged to send us a message.

Step 3: Calculate and Pay the Total Automatically

Once you have your file(s) ready and load it into Speak, it will automatically calculate the total cost (you get 30 minutes of audio and video free in the 7-day trial - take advantage of it!).

If you are uploading text data into Speak, you do not currently have to pay any cost. Only the Speak Magic Prompts analysis would create a fee which will be detailed below.

Once you go over your 30 minutes or need to use Speak Magic Prompts, you can pay by subscribing to a personalized plan using our real-time calculator .

You can also add a balance or pay for uploads and analysis without a plan using your credit card .

Step 4: Wait for Speak to Analyze Your Research Data

If you are uploading audio and video, our automated transcription software will prepare your transcript quickly. Once completed, you will get an email notification that your transcript is complete. That email will contain a link back to the file so you can access the interactive media player with the transcript, analysis, and export formats ready for you.

If you are importing CSVs or uploading text files Speak will generally analyze the information much more quickly.

Step 5: Visit Your File Or Folder

Speak is capable of analyzing both individual files and entire folders of data.

When you are viewing any individual file in Speak, all you have to do is click on the "Prompts" button.

If you want to analyze many files, all you have to do is add the files you want to analyze into a folder within Speak.

You can do that by adding new files into Speak or you can organize your current files into your desired folder with the software's easy editing functionality.

Step 6: Select Speak Magic Prompts To Analyze Your Research Data

What are magic prompts.

Speak Magic Prompts leverage innovation in artificial intelligence models often referred to as "generative AI".

These models have analyzed huge amounts of data from across the internet to gain an understanding of language.

With that understanding, these "large language models" are capable of performing mind-bending tasks!

With Speak Magic Prompts, you can now perform those tasks on the audio, video and text data in your Speak account.

Step 7: Select Your Assistant Type

To help you get better results from Speak Magic Prompts, Speak has introduced "Assistant Type".

These assistant types pre-set and provide context to the prompt engine for more concise, meaningful outputs based on your needs.

To begin, we have included:

Choose the most relevant assistant type from the dropdown.

Step 8: Create Or Select Your Desired Prompt

Here are some examples prompts that you can apply to any file right now:

• Create a SWOT Analysis
• Give me the top action items
• Create a bullet point list summary
• Tell me the key issues that were left unresolved
• Tell me what questions were asked
• Create Your Own Custom Prompts

A modal will pop up so you can use the suggested prompts we shared above to instantly and magically get your answers.

If you have your own prompts you want to create, select "Custom Prompt" from the dropdown and another text box will open where you can ask anything you want of your data!

Step 9: Review & Share Responses

Speak will generate a concise response for you in a text box below the prompt selection dropdown.

In this example, we ask to analyze all the Interview Data in the folder at once for the top product dissatisfiers.

You can easily copy that response for your presentations, content, emails, team members and more!

Speak Magic Prompts As ChatGPT For Research Data Pricing

Our team at Speak Ai continues to optimize the pricing for Magic Prompts and Speak as a whole.

Right now, anyone in the 7-day trial of Speak gets 100,000 characters included in their account.

If you need more characters, you can easily include Speak Magic Prompts in your plan when you create a subscription.

You can also upgrade the number of characters in your account if you already have a subscription.

Both options are available on the subscription page .

Alternatively, you can use Speak Magic Prompts by adding a balance to your account. The balance will be used as you analyze characters.

Completely Personalize Your Plan 📝

Here at Speak, we've made it incredibly easy to personalize your subscription.

Once you sign-up, just visit our custom plan builder and select the media volume, team size, and features you want to get a plan that fits your needs.

No more rigid plans. Upgrade, downgrade or cancel at any time.

Claim Your Special Offer 🎁

When you subscribe, you will also get a free premium add-on for three months!

That means you save up to $50 USD per month and $150 USD in total.

Once you subscribe to a plan, all you have to do is send us a live chat with your selected premium add-on from the list below:

• Premium Export Options (Word, CSV & More)
• Custom Categories & Insights
• Bulk Editing & Data Organization
• Recorder Customization (Branding, Input & More)
• Media Player Customization
• Shareable Media Libraries

We will put the add-on live in your account free of charge!

What are you waiting for?

Refer Others & Earn Real Money 💸

If you have friends, peers and followers interested in using our platform, you can earn real monthly money.

You will get paid a percentage of all sales whether the customers you refer to pay for a plan, automatically transcribe media or leverage professional transcription services.

Use this link to become an official Speak affiliate.

Check Out Our Dedicated Resources📚

• Speak Ai YouTube Channel
• Guide To Building Your Perfect Speak Plan

Book A Free Implementation Session 🤝

It would be an honour to personally jump on an introductory call with you to make sure you are set up for success.

Just use our Calendly link to find a time that works well for you. We look forward to meeting you!

Top-Rated AI Meeting Assistant With Incredible ChatGPT & Qualitative Data Analysis Capabilities​

Save 99% of your time and costs!

Use Speak's powerful AI to transcribe, analyze, automate and produce incredible insights for you and your team.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Published on April 12, 2019 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on June 22, 2023.

When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge.

Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions.

Quantitative research is at risk for research biases including information bias , omitted variable bias , sampling bias , or selection bias . Qualitative research Qualitative research is expressed in words . It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences. This type of research enables you to gather in-depth insights on topics that are not well understood.

Common qualitative methods include interviews with open-ended questions, observations described in words, and literature reviews that explore concepts and theories.

Table of contents

The differences between quantitative and qualitative research, data collection methods, when to use qualitative vs. quantitative research, how to analyze qualitative and quantitative data, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research.

Quantitative and qualitative research use different research methods to collect and analyze data, and they allow you to answer different kinds of research questions.

Quantitative and qualitative data can be collected using various methods. It is important to use a data collection method that will help answer your research question(s).

Many data collection methods can be either qualitative or quantitative. For example, in surveys, observational studies or case studies , your data can be represented as numbers (e.g., using rating scales or counting frequencies) or as words (e.g., with open-ended questions or descriptions of what you observe).

However, some methods are more commonly used in one type or the other.

Quantitative data collection methods

• Surveys :  List of closed or multiple choice questions that is distributed to a sample (online, in person, or over the phone).
• Experiments : Situation in which different types of variables are controlled and manipulated to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
• Observations : Observing subjects in a natural environment where variables can’t be controlled.

Qualitative data collection methods

• Interviews : Asking open-ended questions verbally to respondents.
• Focus groups : Discussion among a group of people about a topic to gather opinions that can be used for further research.
• Ethnography : Participating in a community or organization for an extended period of time to closely observe culture and behavior.
• Literature review : Survey of published works by other authors.

A rule of thumb for deciding whether to use qualitative or quantitative data is:

• Use quantitative research if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis )
• Use qualitative research if you want to understand something (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

For most research topics you can choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach . Which type you choose depends on, among other things, whether you’re taking an inductive vs. deductive research approach ; your research question(s) ; whether you’re doing experimental , correlational , or descriptive research ; and practical considerations such as time, money, availability of data, and access to respondents.

Quantitative research approach

You survey 300 students at your university and ask them questions such as: “on a scale from 1-5, how satisfied are your with your professors?”

You can perform statistical analysis on the data and draw conclusions such as: “on average students rated their professors 4.4”.

Qualitative research approach

You conduct in-depth interviews with 15 students and ask them open-ended questions such as: “How satisfied are you with your studies?”, “What is the most positive aspect of your study program?” and “What can be done to improve the study program?”

Based on the answers you get you can ask follow-up questions to clarify things. You transcribe all interviews using transcription software and try to find commonalities and patterns.

Mixed methods approach

You conduct interviews to find out how satisfied students are with their studies. Through open-ended questions you learn things you never thought about before and gain new insights. Later, you use a survey to test these insights on a larger scale.

It’s also possible to start with a survey to find out the overall trends, followed by interviews to better understand the reasons behind the trends.

Qualitative or quantitative data by itself can’t prove or demonstrate anything, but has to be analyzed to show its meaning in relation to the research questions. The method of analysis differs for each type of data.

Analyzing quantitative data

Quantitative data is based on numbers. Simple math or more advanced statistical analysis is used to discover commonalities or patterns in the data. The results are often reported in graphs and tables.

Applications such as Excel, SPSS, or R can be used to calculate things like:

• Average scores ( means )
• The number of times a particular answer was given
• The correlation or causation between two or more variables
• The reliability and validity of the results

Analyzing qualitative data

Qualitative data is more difficult to analyze than quantitative data. It consists of text, images or videos instead of numbers.

Some common approaches to analyzing qualitative data include:

• Qualitative content analysis : Tracking the occurrence, position and meaning of words or phrases
• Thematic analysis : Closely examining the data to identify the main themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying how communication works in social contexts

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

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

Research bias

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

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

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

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

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

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

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

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

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Streefkerk, R. (2023, June 22). Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-quantitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, mixed methods research | definition, guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative?

The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze.

Quantitative research collects numerical data and analyzes it using statistical methods. The aim is to produce objective, empirical data that can be measured and expressed in numerical terms. Quantitative research is often used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and make predictions.

Qualitative research , on the other hand, collects non-numerical data such as words, images, and sounds. The focus is on exploring subjective experiences, opinions, and attitudes, often through observation and interviews.

Qualitative research aims to produce rich and detailed descriptions of the phenomenon being studied, and to uncover new insights and meanings.

Quantitative data is information about quantities, and therefore numbers, and qualitative data is descriptive, and regards phenomenon which can be observed but not measured, such as language.

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality.

Qualitative data is non-numerical data, such as text, video, photographs, or audio recordings. This type of data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis.

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 2)

Interest in qualitative data came about as the result of the dissatisfaction of some psychologists (e.g., Carl Rogers) with the scientific study of psychologists such as behaviorists (e.g., Skinner ).

Since psychologists study people, the traditional approach to science is not seen as an appropriate way of carrying out research since it fails to capture the totality of human experience and the essence of being human.  Exploring participants’ experiences is known as a phenomenological approach (re: Humanism ).

Qualitative research is primarily concerned with meaning, subjectivity, and lived experience. The goal is to understand the quality and texture of people’s experiences, how they make sense of them, and the implications for their lives.

Qualitative research aims to understand the social reality of individuals, groups, and cultures as nearly as possible as participants feel or live it. Thus, people and groups are studied in their natural setting.

Some examples of qualitative research questions are provided, such as what an experience feels like, how people talk about something, how they make sense of an experience, and how events unfold for people.

Research following a qualitative approach is exploratory and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ a particular phenomenon, or behavior, operates as it does in a particular context. It can be used to generate hypotheses and theories from the data.

Qualitative Methods

There are different types of qualitative research methods, including diary accounts, in-depth interviews , documents, focus groups , case study research , and ethnography.

The results of qualitative methods provide a deep understanding of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world.

The researcher has several methods for collecting empirical materials, ranging from the interview to direct observation, to the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the use of visual materials or personal experience. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 14)

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

Interview transcripts : Verbatim records of what participants said during an interview or focus group. They allow researchers to identify common themes and patterns, and draw conclusions based on the data. Interview transcripts can also be useful in providing direct quotes and examples to support research findings.

Observations : The researcher typically takes detailed notes on what they observe, including any contextual information, nonverbal cues, or other relevant details. The resulting observational data can be analyzed to gain insights into social phenomena, such as human behavior, social interactions, and cultural practices.

Unstructured interviews : generate qualitative data through the use of open questions.  This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words.  This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.

Diaries or journals : Written accounts of personal experiences or reflections.

Notice that qualitative data could be much more than just words or text. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, and so on, can be considered qualitative data. Visual data can be used to understand behaviors, environments, and social interactions.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative research is endlessly creative and interpretive. The researcher does not just leave the field with mountains of empirical data and then easily write up his or her findings.

Qualitative interpretations are constructed, and various techniques can be used to make sense of the data, such as content analysis, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), or discourse analysis.

For example, thematic analysis is a qualitative approach that involves identifying implicit or explicit ideas within the data. Themes will often emerge once the data has been coded.

Key Features

• Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the field, in natural surroundings. The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
• Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
• The qualitative researcher is an integral part of the data; without the active participation of the researcher, no data exists.
• The study’s design evolves during the research and can be adjusted or changed as it progresses. For the qualitative researcher, there is no single reality. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.
• The theory is data-driven and emerges as part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

• Because of the time and costs involved, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples from large-scale data sets.
• The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards of reliability and validity. For example, because of the central role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not possible to replicate qualitative studies.
• Also, contexts, situations, events, conditions, and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent, nor can generalizations be made to a wider context than the one studied with confidence.
• The time required for data collection, analysis, and interpretation is lengthy. Analysis of qualitative data is difficult, and expert knowledge of an area is necessary to interpret qualitative data. Great care must be taken when doing so, for example, looking for mental illness symptoms.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

• Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider’s view of the field. This allows the researcher to find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic inquiries.
• Qualitative descriptions can be important in suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects, and dynamic processes.
• Qualitative analysis allows for ambiguities/contradictions in the data, which reflect social reality (Denscombe, 2010).
• Qualitative research uses a descriptive, narrative style; this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research involves the process of objectively collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest.

The goals of quantitative research are to test causal relationships between variables , make predictions, and generalize results to wider populations.

Quantitative researchers aim to establish general laws of behavior and phenomenon across different settings/contexts. Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Quantitative Methods

Experiments typically yield quantitative data, as they are concerned with measuring things.  However, other research methods, such as controlled observations and questionnaires , can produce both quantitative information.

For example, a rating scale or closed questions on a questionnaire would generate quantitative data as these produce either numerical data or data that can be put into categories (e.g., “yes,” “no” answers).

Experimental methods limit how research participants react to and express appropriate social behavior.

Findings are, therefore, likely to be context-bound and simply a reflection of the assumptions that the researcher brings to the investigation.

There are numerous examples of quantitative data in psychological research, including mental health. Here are a few examples:

Another example is the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR), a self-report questionnaire widely used to assess adult attachment styles .

The ECR provides quantitative data that can be used to assess attachment styles and predict relationship outcomes.

Neuroimaging data : Neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI and fMRI, provide quantitative data on brain structure and function.

This data can be analyzed to identify brain regions involved in specific mental processes or disorders.

For example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) is a clinician-administered questionnaire widely used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms in individuals.

The BDI consists of 21 questions, each scored on a scale of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. 

Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistics help us turn quantitative data into useful information to help with decision-making. We can use statistics to summarize our data, describing patterns, relationships, and connections. Statistics can be descriptive or inferential.

Descriptive statistics help us to summarize our data. In contrast, inferential statistics are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups of data (such as intervention and control groups in a randomized control study).

• Quantitative researchers try to control extraneous variables by conducting their studies in the lab.
• The research aims for objectivity (i.e., without bias) and is separated from the data.
• The design of the study is determined before it begins.
• For the quantitative researcher, the reality is objective, exists separately from the researcher, and can be seen by anyone.
• Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Limitations of Quantitative Research

• Context: Quantitative experiments do not take place in natural settings. In addition, they do not allow participants to explain their choices or the meaning of the questions they may have for those participants (Carr, 1994).
• Researcher expertise: Poor knowledge of the application of statistical analysis may negatively affect analysis and subsequent interpretation (Black, 1999).
• Variability of data quantity: Large sample sizes are needed for more accurate analysis. Small-scale quantitative studies may be less reliable because of the low quantity of data (Denscombe, 2010). This also affects the ability to generalize study findings to wider populations.
• Confirmation bias: The researcher might miss observing phenomena because of focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather than on the theory of hypothesis generation.

Advantages of Quantitative Research

• Scientific objectivity: Quantitative data can be interpreted with statistical analysis, and since statistics are based on the principles of mathematics, the quantitative approach is viewed as scientifically objective and rational (Carr, 1994; Denscombe, 2010).
• Useful for testing and validating already constructed theories.
• Rapid analysis: Sophisticated software removes much of the need for prolonged data analysis, especially with large volumes of data involved (Antonius, 2003).
• Replication: Quantitative data is based on measured values and can be checked by others because numerical data is less open to ambiguities of interpretation.
• Hypotheses can also be tested because of statistical analysis (Antonius, 2003).

Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS . Sage.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics . Sage.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3, 77–101.

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research : what method for nursing? Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4) , 716-721.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research. McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln. Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4) , 364.

Minichiello, V. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Longman Cheshire.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage

Further Information

• Designing qualitative research
• Methods of data collection and analysis
• Introduction to quantitative and qualitative research
• Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
• Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
• Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach
• Using the framework method for the analysis of
• Qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
• Content Analysis
• Grounded Theory
• Thematic Analysis

Case Study vs. Descriptive Approach to Research

What's the difference.

The case study approach and the descriptive approach are two different methods used in research. The case study approach involves in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, or situation. It aims to provide a detailed understanding of the subject matter by examining various aspects and collecting qualitative data. On the other hand, the descriptive approach focuses on describing and summarizing a larger population or phenomenon. It involves collecting quantitative data through surveys, observations, or experiments to draw general conclusions. While the case study approach provides rich and detailed information, it is limited in terms of generalizability. In contrast, the descriptive approach allows for broader generalizations but may lack the depth and context provided by case studies. Ultimately, the choice between these approaches depends on the research objectives and the nature of the research question.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research is a fundamental aspect of any scientific inquiry, aiming to gather information and gain insights into various phenomena. When conducting research, researchers employ different approaches and methodologies to achieve their objectives. Two commonly used approaches are the case study and descriptive approach. While both approaches have their unique attributes, they differ in terms of their focus, data collection methods, and generalizability.

Case Study Approach

The case study approach is a qualitative research method that focuses on in-depth analysis of a specific individual, group, or event. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject under investigation by examining its context, history, and unique characteristics. Case studies often involve multiple sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to gather rich and detailed information.

One of the key attributes of the case study approach is its ability to explore complex and unique phenomena that may not be easily captured by other research methods. By delving deep into a specific case, researchers can uncover intricate details and gain a holistic understanding of the subject. This approach is particularly useful when studying rare or exceptional cases, as it allows researchers to examine the intricacies and nuances that may not be apparent in larger-scale studies.

Furthermore, the case study approach enables researchers to generate new hypotheses and theories by closely examining the relationships and patterns within the case. It provides an opportunity for researchers to explore and develop new ideas, which can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field. Additionally, case studies often involve a longitudinal design, allowing researchers to track changes and developments over time.

However, it is important to note that the case study approach has limitations. Due to its focus on a specific case, the findings may not be easily generalizable to a larger population. The small sample size and unique characteristics of the case may limit the external validity of the findings. Therefore, caution should be exercised when applying the results of a case study to broader contexts.

Descriptive Approach

The descriptive approach, also known as the survey method, aims to describe and analyze the characteristics, behaviors, and opinions of a specific population or sample. It involves collecting data through questionnaires, interviews, or observations, and analyzing the responses to draw conclusions about the population under study. The descriptive approach provides a snapshot of the current state of affairs and allows researchers to identify patterns and trends.

One of the key attributes of the descriptive approach is its ability to provide a broad overview of a population or phenomenon. By collecting data from a large sample, researchers can make generalizations about the population and draw conclusions that are applicable to a wider context. This approach is particularly useful when studying large populations or when the research objective is to describe the prevalence of certain characteristics or behaviors.

Moreover, the descriptive approach allows researchers to quantify data and analyze it statistically. By using statistical techniques, researchers can identify relationships between variables, test hypotheses, and make predictions. This quantitative aspect of the descriptive approach provides a level of objectivity and allows for comparisons across different groups or populations.

However, the descriptive approach also has limitations. It may not capture the complexity and richness of individual cases or unique phenomena. The focus on generalizability may overlook important contextual factors that influence the research topic. Additionally, the reliance on self-report measures in surveys may introduce biases and inaccuracies in the data collected.

While the case study and descriptive approaches differ in their focus and data collection methods, they both contribute to the field of research in their own ways. The case study approach provides in-depth insights into specific cases, allowing researchers to explore complex phenomena and generate new hypotheses. On the other hand, the descriptive approach provides a broader overview of populations, enabling researchers to make generalizations and identify patterns.

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice between them depends on the research objectives and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation. Researchers should carefully consider the specific research question, the available resources, and the desired level of generalizability when selecting the appropriate approach.

In conclusion, the case study and descriptive approaches are two distinct research methodologies that offer different perspectives and insights. The case study approach allows for in-depth analysis of specific cases, providing rich and detailed information. On the other hand, the descriptive approach provides a broader overview of populations, allowing for generalizations and statistical analysis. Both approaches have their merits and limitations, and researchers should choose the most appropriate approach based on their research objectives and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research in Psychology

Anabelle Bernard Fournier is a researcher of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Victoria as well as a freelance writer on various health topics.

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

• Key Differences

Quantitative Research Methods

Qualitative research methods.

• How They Relate

In psychology and other social sciences, researchers are faced with an unresolved question: Can we measure concepts like love or racism the same way we can measure temperature or the weight of a star? Social phenomena⁠—things that happen because of and through human behavior⁠—are especially difficult to grasp with typical scientific models.

At a Glance

Psychologists rely on quantitative and quantitative research to better understand human thought and behavior.

• Qualitative research involves collecting and evaluating non-numerical data in order to understand concepts or subjective opinions.
• Quantitative research involves collecting and evaluating numerical data. 

This article discusses what qualitative and quantitative research are, how they are different, and how they are used in psychology research.

Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research

In order to understand qualitative and quantitative psychology research, it can be helpful to look at the methods that are used and when each type is most appropriate.

Psychologists rely on a few methods to measure behavior, attitudes, and feelings. These include:

• Self-reports , like surveys or questionnaires
• Observation (often used in experiments or fieldwork)
• Implicit attitude tests that measure timing in responding to prompts

Most of these are quantitative methods. The result is a number that can be used to assess differences between groups.

However, most of these methods are static, inflexible (you can't change a question because a participant doesn't understand it), and provide a "what" answer rather than a "why" answer.

Sometimes, researchers are more interested in the "why" and the "how." That's where qualitative methods come in.

Qualitative research is about speaking to people directly and hearing their words. It is grounded in the philosophy that the social world is ultimately unmeasurable, that no measure is truly ever "objective," and that how humans make meaning is just as important as how much they score on a standardized test.

Used to develop theories

Takes a broad, complex approach

Answers "why" and "how" questions

Explores patterns and themes

Used to test theories

Takes a narrow, specific approach

Answers "what" questions

Explores statistical relationships

Quantitative methods have existed ever since people have been able to count things. But it is only with the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte (which maintains that factual knowledge obtained by observation is trustworthy) that it became a "scientific method."

The scientific method follows this general process. A researcher must:

• Generate a theory or hypothesis (i.e., predict what might happen in an experiment) and determine the variables needed to answer their question
• Develop instruments to measure the phenomenon (such as a survey, a thermometer, etc.)
• Develop experiments to manipulate the variables
• Collect empirical (measured) data
• Analyze data

Quantitative methods are about measuring phenomena, not explaining them.

Quantitative research compares two groups of people. There are all sorts of variables you could measure, and many kinds of experiments to run using quantitative methods.

These comparisons are generally explained using graphs, pie charts, and other visual representations that give the researcher a sense of how the various data points relate to one another.

Basic Assumptions

Quantitative methods assume:

• That the world is measurable
• That humans can observe objectively
• That we can know things for certain about the world from observation

In some fields, these assumptions hold true. Whether you measure the size of the sun 2000 years ago or now, it will always be the same. But when it comes to human behavior, it is not so simple.

As decades of cultural and social research have shown, people behave differently (and even think differently) based on historical context, cultural context, social context, and even identity-based contexts like gender , social class, or sexual orientation .

Therefore, quantitative methods applied to human behavior (as used in psychology and some areas of sociology) should always be rooted in their particular context. In other words: there are no, or very few, human universals.

Statistical information is the primary form of quantitative data used in human and social quantitative research. Statistics provide lots of information about tendencies across large groups of people, but they can never describe every case or every experience. In other words, there are always outliers.

Correlation and Causation

A basic principle of statistics is that correlation is not causation. Researchers can only claim a cause-and-effect relationship under certain conditions:

• The study was a true experiment.
• The independent variable can be manipulated (for example, researchers cannot manipulate gender, but they can change the primer a study subject sees, such as a picture of nature or of a building).
• The dependent variable can be measured through a ratio or a scale.

So when you read a report that "gender was linked to" something (like a behavior or an attitude), remember that gender is NOT a cause of the behavior or attitude. There is an apparent relationship, but the true cause of the difference is hidden.

Pitfalls of Quantitative Research

Quantitative methods are one way to approach the measurement and understanding of human and social phenomena. But what's missing from this picture?

As noted above, statistics do not tell us about personal, individual experiences and meanings. While surveys can give a general idea, respondents have to choose between only a few responses. This can make it difficult to understand the subtleties of different experiences.

Quantitative methods can be helpful when making objective comparisons between groups or when looking for relationships between variables. They can be analyzed statistically, which can be helpful when looking for patterns and relationships.

Qualitative data are not made out of numbers but rather of descriptions, metaphors, symbols, quotes, analysis, concepts, and characteristics. This approach uses interviews, written texts, art, photos, and other materials to make sense of human experiences and to understand what these experiences mean to people.

While quantitative methods ask "what" and "how much," qualitative methods ask "why" and "how."

Qualitative methods are about describing and analyzing phenomena from a human perspective. There are many different philosophical views on qualitative methods, but in general, they agree that some questions are too complex or impossible to answer with standardized instruments.

These methods also accept that it is impossible to be completely objective in observing phenomena. Researchers have their own thoughts, attitudes, experiences, and beliefs, and these always color how people interpret results.

Qualitative Approaches

There are many different approaches to qualitative research, with their own philosophical bases. Different approaches are best for different kinds of projects. For example:

• Case studies and narrative studies are best for single individuals. These involve studying every aspect of a person's life in great depth.
• Phenomenology aims to explain experiences. This type of work aims to describe and explore different events as they are consciously and subjectively experienced.
• Grounded theory develops models and describes processes. This approach allows researchers to construct a theory based on data that is collected, analyzed, and compared to reach new discoveries.
• Ethnography describes cultural groups. In this approach, researchers immerse themselves in a community or group in order to observe behavior.

Qualitative researchers must be aware of several different methods and know each thoroughly enough to produce valuable research.

Some researchers specialize in a single method, but others specialize in a topic or content area and use many different methods to explore the topic, providing different information and a variety of points of view.

There is not a single model or method that can be used for every qualitative project. Depending on the research question, the people participating, and the kind of information they want to produce, researchers will choose the appropriate approach.

Interpretation

Qualitative research does not look into causal relationships between variables, but rather into themes, values, interpretations, and meanings. As a rule, then, qualitative research is not generalizable (cannot be applied to people outside the research participants).

The insights gained from qualitative research can extend to other groups with proper attention to specific historical and social contexts.

Relationship Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

It might sound like quantitative and qualitative research do not play well together. They have different philosophies, different data, and different outputs. However, this could not be further from the truth.

These two general methods complement each other. By using both, researchers can gain a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon.

For example, a psychologist wanting to develop a new survey instrument about sexuality might and ask a few dozen people questions about their sexual experiences (this is qualitative research). This gives the researcher some information to begin developing questions for their survey (which is a quantitative method).

After the survey, the same or other researchers might want to dig deeper into issues brought up by its data. Follow-up questions like "how does it feel when...?" or "what does this mean to you?" or "how did you experience this?" can only be answered by qualitative research.

By using both quantitative and qualitative data, researchers have a more holistic, well-rounded understanding of a particular topic or phenomenon.

Qualitative and quantitative methods both play an important role in psychology. Where quantitative methods can help answer questions about what is happening in a group and to what degree, qualitative methods can dig deeper into the reasons behind why it is happening. By using both strategies, psychology researchers can learn more about human thought and behavior.

Gough B, Madill A. Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect . Psychol Methods . 2012;17(3):374-384. doi:10.1037/a0029313

Pearce T. “Science organized”: Positivism and the metaphysical club, 1865–1875 . J Hist Ideas . 2015;76(3):441-465.

Adams G. Context in person, person in context: A cultural psychology approach to social-personality psychology . In: Deaux K, Snyder M, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology . Oxford University Press; 2012:182-208.

Brady HE. Causation and explanation in social science . In: Goodin RE, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press; 2011. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049

Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers .  SAGE Open Med . 2019;7:2050312118822927. doi:10.1177/2050312118822927

Reeves S, Peller J, Goldman J, Kitto S. Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80 . Medical Teacher . 2013;35(8):e1365-e1379. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977

Salkind NJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Research Design . Sage Publishing.

Shaughnessy JJ, Zechmeister EB, Zechmeister JS.  Research Methods in Psychology . McGraw Hill Education.

By Anabelle Bernard Fournier Anabelle Bernard Fournier is a researcher of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Victoria as well as a freelance writer on various health topics.

• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2024

Healthcare team resilience during COVID-19: a qualitative study

• John W. Ambrose 1 ,
• Ken Catchpole 2 ,
• Heather L. Evans 3 ,
• Lynne S. Nemeth 1 ,
• Diana M. Layne 1 &
• Michelle Nichols 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  459 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

111 Accesses

Metrics details

Resilience, in the field of Resilience Engineering, has been identified as the ability to maintain the safety and the performance of healthcare systems and is aligned with the resilience potentials of anticipation, monitoring, adaptation, and learning. In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic challenged the resilience of US healthcare systems due to the lack of equipment, supply interruptions, and a shortage of personnel. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe resilience in the healthcare team during the COVID-19 pandemic with the healthcare team situated as a cognizant, singular source of knowledge and defined by its collective identity, purpose, competence, and actions, versus the resilience of an individual or an organization.

We developed a descriptive model which considered the healthcare team as a unified cognizant entity within a system designed for safe patient care. This model combined elements from the Patient Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) and the Advanced Team Decision Making (ADTM) models. Using a qualitative descriptive design and guided by our adapted model, we conducted individual interviews with healthcare team members across the United States. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and extracted codes were organized within the adapted model framework.

Five themes were identified from the interviews with acute care professionals across the US ( N  = 22): teamwork in a pressure cooker , consistent with working in a high stress environment; healthcare team cohesion , applying past lessons to present challenges , congruent with transferring past skills to current situations; knowledge gaps , and altruistic behaviors , aligned with sense of duty and personal responsibility to the team. Participants’ described how their ability to adapt to their environment was negatively impacted by uncertainty, inconsistent communication of information, and emotions of anxiety, fear, frustration, and stress. Cohesion with co-workers, transferability of skills, and altruistic behavior enhanced healthcare team performance.

Working within the extreme unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19 affected the ability of the healthcare team to anticipate and adapt to the rapidly changing environment. Both team cohesion and altruistic behavior promoted resilience. Our research contributes to a growing understanding of the importance of resilience in the healthcare team. And provides a bridge between individual and organizational resilience.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the complexity and dynamic nature of healthcare systems. It also created a unique opportunity to look at the concept of resilience through the lens of the healthcare team versus the more common approach of situating the concept within the individual or the organization. The early phase of the pandemic was marked by challenges, such as limited access to personal protective equipment, personnel shortages, drug shortages, and increased risks of infection [ 1 , 2 ]. Ensuring patient safety and proper functioning requires coordination and adaptation of the healthcare team and various processes across the health system infrastructure [ 3 , 4 ]. Resilience results from adaptive coordination which enables healthcare systems to maintain routine function in the face of all conditions [ 5 , 6 ].

Resilience in healthcare has been operationalized through resilience engineering, an interdisciplinary aspect of systems engineering focused on promotingpatient safety through the design, implementation, and management of healthcare systems [ 7 , 8 , 9 ] (e.g., how healthcare systems adapt and adjust to maneuver through the daily complexities and challenges to identify effective practices, prevent errors and maintain resilient performance) [ 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Resilient performance in healthcare is proposed to be the net result of reaching the threshold of four resilience capabilities within the system: anticipation, the ability to expect and prepare for the unexpected; monitoring, the ability to observe threats to daily system performance; responding, the ability to adapt how the performance is enacted; and learning, the ability to learn from present and past accomplishments within the system [ 12 ]. At present, there is a paucity of research on the resilience of the healthcare team as a cohesive, singular conscious source of knowledge in a highly complex healthcare system. While the resilience of both healthcare systems [ 11 , 13 ] and healthcare workers [ 14 ] has been investigated, there is a gap in knowledge specific to the resilience of the healthcare team as a unified singular consciousness. The circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity to understand the resilience of the healthcare team in a highly complex system as a singular aware entity within the system; how it acknowledges itself, defines its purpose, and performs under extenuating circumstances. This shifts the emphasis of individual and organization resilience to the resilience in the interconnected healthcare team that extends beyond the boundary of any single person.

The adapted model situates the healthcare team as a cohesive singlular conscious source of knowledge within an intricate and highly complex system [ 15 ]. This model was designed as a bridge between resilience found in individuals within the healthcare system and the organization to emphasize the healthcare team as an aware, unified whole. Our model [ 15 ] combines the existing Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model [ 16 ] (version 1), which is based on five domains (organization, person, tasks, technologies, and tools), and environment and the Advanced Team Decision Making Model [ 17 ], which includes components for team performance [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Team performance is comprised of team identity, team cognition, team competency, and team metacognition [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Team identity describes how the team identifies their purpose to help one another [ 17 ]. Team cognition describes the state of mind of the team, their focus, and common goals [ 17 ]. Team competency describes how well the team accomplishes tasks, and team metacognition describes problem solving and responsibility [ 17 , 19 ], Fig.  1 .

Healthcare Team as a cohesive, singular conscious source of knowledge in a highly complex system. The continuous variegated border represents the singularity and connectedness of the healthcare team within the system. The gears represent the processes, people, technology, and tasks within this highly dynamic healthcare system

The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe resilience in the healthcare team during the COVID-19 pandemic with the healthcare team situated as a singular conscious source of knowledge defined by its collective identity, purpose, competence, and actions. Additionally, we sought to identify factors that may facilitate or hinder the healthcare team from achieving the necessary capabilities to monitor, anticipate, adapt, and learn to meet the standard for resilient performance.

Methodology

A qualitative descriptive design [ 20 , 21 ] was employed. The interview guide was framed using the adapted model to explore various aspects of healthcare team performance (identity, purpose, competence, and cognition). These questions were pilot tested on the first 3 participants and no further changes were needed. Specifically, we aimed to investigate resilience capabilities, decision-making processes, and overall healthcare team performance.

Sampling strategy

A purposive snowball sample was used to identify healthcare team members who worked in U.S. acute care settings between January 2020–December 2020. This sampling method was used to ensure recruitment of participants most likely to have insight into the phenomenon of resilience in the acute care setting.

Inclusion criteria

To explore a wide range of interprofessional experience, participants were recruited across geographic regions and professional roles through personal contacts and social media [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Eligible participants included English-speaking individuals ages 20 and older with a valid personal email address, internet access, and the ability to participate in an online video interview. Potential participants had to be employed full or part-time for any period from January 2020–December 2020 in any of the following acute healthcare environments: emergency room (ER), intensive care unit (ICU), COVID- 19 ICU, COVID-19 floor, gastroenterology inpatient unit, endoscopy suite, operating room (OR), post anesthesia recovery room (PACU), pre-operative holding area, hospital administration, or inpatient medical and/or surgical patient care unit.

Exclusion criteria

Healthcare team members who did not complete the pre-screening survey or failed to schedule an interview were not enrolled.

National recruitment in the U.S

Upon approval by MUSC Institutional Review Board (IRB), registered under Pro00100917, fliers, social media posts on Twitter TM (version 9.34 IOS, San Francisco, California) and Facebook TM (version 390.1 IOS, Menlo Park, CA), and word of mouth were used to initiate recruitment efforts. Interested participants were sent a link to an electronic screening survey explaining the purpose of the study and verifying the respondents’ eligibility to participate. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Data collection

Data were collected via an initial screening questionnaire to determine eligibility. Data were managed using REDCap™ (version 11.2.2) electronic data capture tools hosted at MUSC. Demographic data included age, sex, race, professional role, years of experience, geographic region, patient population served, practice specialty area, and deployment status during the pandemic. Deployment refers to the reassignment of personnel from their primary clinical area to another area to meet the demands of another clinical area without regard for the participant’s clinical expertise. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured audio video recorded interviews to understand the healthcare team in their natural environment. Recorded interviews were conducted via Microsoft® Teams (version 1.5.00.17261, Microsoft Corporation) from the PIs private office to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission and promote participation across the U.S.

Data monitoring and safety

The quality of the demographic data was monitored to ensure completeness. Potential participants who submitted incomplete responses on the questionnaire were excluded. Interviews were transcribed using software, transcriptions were reviewed and verified for accuracy, and then uploaded to MAXQDA Analytics Pro, Version 2022 (VERBI software) to facilitate data analysis. Transcripts were not returned to the participants. Qualitative codebooks, institutional review board (IRB) logs, and other study records were stored on a secure university server, with access limited to authorized study personnel. Adherence to Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) standards were maintained throughout the study and analysis [ 26 ].

Data analysis

Quantitative analysis.

Demographic data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics for MAC, version 28 (IBM). Both descriptive statistics for the continuous variables of age and years of experience (mean, standard deviation) and frequency tables (age, sex, race, role, geographic region, population served, deployment status) were analyzed.

Qualitative analysis

The Principal Investigator (PI) (JA) and senior mentor (MN) independently coded the interview transcripts. Open coding method was used to identify the categories of data [ 22 , 27 ]. Both a reflexive journal and audit trail were maintained. Codes were identified through induction from participant experiences and verified through weekly consensus meetings, while theoretical deductive analysis was guided by the adapted model and the four resilience capabilities (anticipation, monitoring, responding, learning [ 12 ]. Reflexive thematic analysis (TA) [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ] was used to analyze the coded data and generate themes. Data were collected and categorized into the codebook until no further codes were identified by the PI and research mentor [ 22 , 27 ]. Participant checking was not employed.

Demographics

The eligibility pool was established based on survey completion. Eighty-nine healthcare team members opened the online screening survey; 21 were incomplete and eliminated from the dataset, which left a pool of 68 potential eligible participants. Eligible participants (100%) were contacted by email and phone to determine their interest in completing the study interview. Twenty-two participants completed screening surveys and study interviews between May–September 2021, equating to a 32.5% enrollment rate. Participant interviews lasted between 21 and 91 min with an average of 43 min. None of the interviews were repeated. Participant demographics, including descriptive statistic and role key, are noted in Tables  1 and 2 , respectively.

Five themes were identified: team work in a pressure cooker , healthcare team cohesion , applying past lessons to present challenges , knowledge gaps , and altruistic behaviors .

Teamwork in a pressure cooker

The theme teamwork in a pressure cooker describes the relentless pressures and emotional stressors (e.g., fear, anxiety, frustration, and stress) experienced by the healthcare team from the risks and potential threats associated with COVID-19 contamination and infection. Factors associated with these pressures included risk of COVID-19 exposure, lack of COVID-19 testing, rapid changes to policies and procedures from the standard, personnel shortages, limited physical space, and limited supplies. Exemplary quotes highlighting participant descriptions of these pressures or subthemes are noted in Table  3 .

The healthcare team described an unprecedented level of stress in the workplace as the healthcare team had to adjust to rapidly changing protocols. The lack of protective equipment, shortage of providers to perform patient care and a lack of a familiar clinical routine saturated them in overwhelming pressure and emotions that stuck to them as they navigated uncharted territory. Exemplary quotes highlighting the healthcare team’s descriptions of these emotions are noted in Table  4 .

“It was…uncharted territory for me.” (P1, DIR) “You were stuck in a situation you never— you didn’t know when it was going to end.” (P4, RN PACU) “They have not enough staff—they can’t do it—they—I don’t know what we’re going to do.” (P6, DIR). “When we deployed—trying to get re-accustomed to the changes—with the needs that had to be met was very difficult.” (P10, RN ENDO) “I wasn’t about to sign up for extra time working in under those stressful conditions.” (P17, RN PACU)

The fear of the unknown, combined with the constant need to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances, led to widespread stress, frustration, anxiety, and exhaustion within the healthcare team. This theme was characterized by the constant pressure both inside and outside of work experienced by the healthcare team.

“Driving to the hospital, crying, driving back from the hospital, crying, still doesn’t sum it up— surrounded by people who were just dying. And what could you do?” (P6, DIR) “It was constant. It was terrible. I couldn’t sleep at night. I’d wake up worried.” (P8, ER MD) “It was kind of like just keep sending the Calvary forward—and when one drops, you just walk over them.” (P17, RN PACU) “It was always there—COVID here, COVID there—you never could just completely get away from it. It was basically the center of everybody’s conversation everywhere you went or if you were on the phone with somebody.” (P18, RN COVID ICU) “I was having to call my parents before I’d leave my apartment to go into work— to vent to them and cry— to let out my frustration and my anxiety—and have them essentially convince me to go into work.” (P19, RN ICU). “Working so much— COVID was all that was on my brain—and it was a lot of pressure.” (P22, MGR)

Working during COVID-19 challenged the resilience of the healthcare team in the face of constant fear and uncertainty. The pressure to maintain team performance, while dealing with constant fear associated with the pandemic effected the healthcare team’s resilience.

“I have to tell you that after being in hospital—I don’t feel resilient right now— doing all the things I’ve done—I just want to be out of the hospital— [crying] I can tell you that it will stay with me the rest of my life— It will always stay with me.” (P6, DIR) “I feel like my team has used up all of their resilience. I don’t think there’s much left.” (P8, ER MD)

However, one team member stood out as an exception. They reported the pressures from the environment helped them to make decisions. This demonstrates that environmental pressures affect members of the healthcare team differently. They reported that the pressure and intensity of the situation sharpened their focus and allowed them to make choices more quickly and effectively.

“I make better decisions when I’m under pressure.” (P22, MGR)

Healthcare team cohesion

The theme healthcare team cohesion describes the unique experience of working together during the pandemic that created a means among the healthcare team to form close relationships and unite. This bond was characterized by the emergence of strong interpersonal connections among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These connections shaped healthcare team relationships and were a factor in the collaborative decision-making processes within healthcare team for their day-to day functions. This cohesive bonding was fueled by the stress and uncertainty of the situation, which brought the healthcare team together illustrated by their solidarity, camaraderie, trust, and empowerment.

“All those decisions, important decisions were made together.” (P7, CRNA) “Everyone felt like they were they were, you know, in a in a battle zone and on the same side—and so that kind of brought people together.” (P8, ER MD) “I think our team worked as one.” (P11, CEO)

Solidarity described the sense of unity evident among the members of the healthcare team. This was characterized by connectedness and a sense of reliance on one another that promoted teamwork and resilience within the team from support both given and received. The sub-theme camaraderie described the close personal connection and support between the healthcare team that went beyond normal social interactions prior to the pandemic. These connections were filled with trust and respect for other healthcare team members.

“I think we were all trying to do the best we could do and help each other do the best they could do—I think early on just camaraderie helped a lot within the department and, you know, just relying on each other for support.” (P8, ER MD) “We knew that we can depend on each other and we all had different skill sets— I think that that was very important—that made us feel secure— rather than going alone.” (P10, RN ENDO) “We [The ICU Nurses] developed a sense of camaraderie that I mean, it’s nothing I’ve ever felt before, like we had to trust each other with our licenses, with our own health—my resiliency came from my coworkers.” (P14, CHG RN) “One of the things that I think the pandemic did in a positive—was—I believe that the teams that I worked for really started to solidify. We leaned on each other. I felt more of a team environment than I had had pre-pandemic—I felt that people were a bit better together. We all needed each other, and we all leaned on each other, and we gave each other support—more so than before COVID- 19.” (P15, CRNA) ”The nurses on the unit were always there for me—they became my friends— my family.” (P19, RN ICU)

The sub theme of empowerment referred to the ability of the healthcare team to confidently make decisions and assume responsibility for their actions within the healthcare setting. This process involved a sense of authority and the ability to exercise agency in decision-making together to respond and adapt to the demands the healthcare team experienced. The combination of solidarity, camaraderie, trust, and empowerment resulted in a strong sense of cohesion within the healthcare team which led to improved relationships and enhanced resilience in their performance.

“I felt that I felt that the team—we all needed each other and we all leaned on each other and we gave each other support—more so than before COVID.” (P15, CRNA) “How do you want to handle this? What’s the plan?—and we collaborated in the true sense of collaboration.” (P15, CRNA) “We just knew that we could count on each other—we knew that we could count on each other at any time if we had questions, because we all worked so closely together during this. We really became a really tight knit group, and it was great.” (P22, MGR)

The benefits of the cohesion found in the healthcare team were significant and apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The strengthened relationships and increased resilience allowed for improved communication and collaboration, leading to better patient care and outcomes. Despite these advantages, it was noted by one participant that the relationships developed were not sustained beyond the peak of the pandemic.

“Now that COVID is kind of at bay in our area, it’s kind of gone back to the same way it was— it has not stuck.” (P15, CRNA)

Applying past lessons to present challenges

The theme applying past lessons to present challenges describes how the knowledge and understanding gained from prior participant experiences was used to adapt to the novel clinical and infrastructural challenges faced during the pandemic. Past experiences facilitated the healthcare team to strategize ways to meet the demands of the healthcare system during this time.

Participants described two strategies the healthcare team used to improve the system’s ability to adapt and function effectively: changing roles and deploying personnel. The process of changing roles involved assigning new responsibilities to individuals based on priority-based initiatives, while deployment involved transferring clinical staff from areas with lower patient care needs to those with higher needs to optimize their utilization. Eleven participants (50%) were affected by these strategies. Of these, 73% were assigned to clinical areas for direct patient care, while the remaining 27% underwent a role change to support the operational needs of the system. The participants’ preexisting work relationships, specialized clinical expertise, and leadership abilities helped them adapt to their new clinical and non-clinical roles, which in turn enhanced the resilience of the healthcare team.

“We wanted to make sure that we were putting people into the right area where their skill set could be used the best.” (P1, DIR) “I’m known for moving people forward—I’m also well known for speaking up when I don’t think it is right and there was a lot of stuff that I didn’t think was right— and not only speaking up, I’m also going to come with the solution.” (P6, DIR)

Participants indicated the lessons learned from prior experience positively impacted team performance and improved patient care outcomes. There were two significant examples in the data: the perspective of a nurse who was redeployed to work in an obstetrics unit (P5, ENDO RN) and the perspective of a nursing director (P6, DIR) whose role was changed to develop a program to ensure adequate staffing.

“Because we [the team of interprofessionals] were all very familiar with what we had to do at the task, at handit [the experience of the provision of care] was very fluid—I think it’s because of our years of experience and working with each other for so long that it just worked out very well ”. (P5, ENDO RN) “Staff believed in me when I said I would do something— I could galvanize people because of my reputation of caring for staff, so I was chosen specifically because of my ability to move people forward in spite of things.” (P6, DIR)

Participants identified being assigned to unfamiliar clinical areas or working with unfamiliar patient populations as a barrier that hindered their ability to adapt to clinical situations. The lack of clinical competence among some personnel led to an increase in workload for other healthcare team members, who had to provide additional instruction and guidance on how to complete the task. Decision-makers who deployed nursing staff to a clinical area with higher staffing needs may have believed that the individual nurse had specific clinical skills that would be helpful in that area, and this was not the case.

“She [the patient] felt like it was that he [the new nurse]—really didn’t know what he was doing—not only were we kind of reintroduced to that role of caring for patients where we haven’t been recently, but we’re also in a teaching mode, too, for the new nurses—we had to prioritize how sick the patients were, from basic vital signs to wound dressings to respiratory, and help those new nurses know which to attend to first.” (P10, RN ENDO) “Nurses weren’t really put in a place with enough support and enough resources to be able to do a job, and to do a job that maybe they haven’t done for a few years.” (P10, RN ENDO)

The participants indicated that clinical competencies of a healthcare provider in one patient population may not necessarily be applicable to another patient group. For instance, a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurse who has experience in managing Extra Corporeal Membranous Oxygen (ECMO) in newborns may not have the necessary skills to care for adult ECMO patients in an adult COVID-19 intensive care unit.

“The ECMO nurse was a NICU nurse, so she really could not help me.” (P14, CHG RN)

Knowledge gaps

The theme knowledge gaps refers to the disparity between the existing knowledge of the healthcare team and the knowledge required for the team to effectively respond and adapt to the needs of the healthcare system. The lack of COVID-19 specific knowledge led to gaps in the healthcare team’s understanding, while the lack of communication made it difficult for necessary information to be effectively conveyed and received (e.g., medical logistics, human resources, and other operational policies and procedures). This knowledge gap created a barrier to healthcare team resilience as their capacities to surveil, anticipate, and respond were diminished from the lack of knowledge.

“That [information] is pretty fundamental to how you [the healthcare team] function.” (P17, RN PACU) “I don’t think any amount of preparation could have actually prepared us for how bad COVID was—but we were very, very, very unprepared.” (P18, RN COVID ICU) “It was confusing, it was disruptive to the patients that we had there. They sensed that. And that’s— OK—screw with me, screw with my colleagues, but don’t screw with the patient.” (P21, RN ENDO)

All the participants in leadership roles during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the importance of having a thorough understanding of the information and effectively communicating it to the frontline healthcare team members most involved in providing patient care.

“There’s nothing worse than having to learn something in the moment and not being prepared for it.” (P1, DIR) “That made us communicate in multiple ways throughout a day because we all know people learn and adapt it could be in print. It could be in person; it could be a video. We tried to have multiple ways of getting messages out and knowing we needed to repeat messages because this was so unknown, and people were so stressed.” (P11, CEO)

One team member (P13, CRNA), highlighted areas where there were gaps in knowledge in greater detail.

“It was as if the unit was being run by all these sort of substitute teachers that were called in at the last minute. Nobody knew where stuff was—nobody knew what the protocol was—the communication was terrible.” (P13, CRNA)

The cumulative effect from the knowledge gaps contributed to the lack of a practical working knowledge for the healthcare team and affected the healthcare team’s ability to anticipate what needed to be done and adapt their performance to accomplish it. Despite knowledge gaps, healthcare team members reported their capability to learn was facilitated by incremental gains in practical knowledge through their experience over time.

“—people got to be experts at protecting patients and keeping themselves safe.” (P8, ER MD) “I think it kind of was like on the job training at that point, I felt like we were all just trying to survive—learning was like—you went out —then you came back, and you would share how things went.” (P15, CRNA) “You tried to educate yourself so you could be safe.” (P17, RN PACU)

The participant responses received from the leadership (CNO, Directors, and Manager) and front-line personnel (administrative staff, nurses, and physicians) regarding the importance of communication highlighted a difference in perspective. Leadership exhibited a strong commitment toward effective communication and made efforts to ensure all healthcare team members were well informed. On the other hand, the frontline participants indicated instances where communication strategies were not perceived as effective.

“I wasn’t contacted by a manager from the unit or anything to be able to reassure, reassure me that things were being followed through and it should be okay, so that was tough.” (P10, RN ENDO) “It really seemed like there was no communication between—like staffing and the floor—we would get up to the floor and they would say, who are you? What are you doing here? What are we supposed to do with you?” (P20, RN OR)

Altruistic behaviors

The theme altruistic behaviors , encompasses the participants’ perception of their obligation and accountability to their patients and healthcare team, and their steadfastness in supporting the healthcare team even if it meant facing personal or professional repercussions. This readiness to aid the healthcare team and accept consequences showcased their altruism and commitment to the healthcare team. The team’s dedication to both their patients and each other was a primary focus driven by a strong sense of responsibility and obligation.

“I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and feel like I did the right thing—.” (P6, DIR) “My resiliency came from my coworkers. I wanted to come back to work to help them.” (P14, RN COVID ICU) “People really looked out for each other—and people were really kind and compassionate to each other—we all were in this together.” (P15, CRNA) “I’m grateful for the experience that I had and all of the different patients that I was able to help in my time there definitely solidified that being a nurse is what I needed to do—and why I chose the profession is exactly what I should have been doing.” (P19, RN ICU) “You just have to go with what seems right—.” (P22, MGR)

A defining characteristic of this theme was a willingness to endure consequences for the benefit of the healthcare team. These consequences varied from contracting the virus, facing criticism from the healthcare team, to foregoing financial incentives, and even job loss.

“I felt like I was punished for speaking up and I was punished for doing the right thing for patients.” (P6, DIR) “I mean, I literally broke the law so many times. Do you know how many times I started pressors [vasoactive drugs to increase blood pressure] on patients that I had no orders for [because a physician would not enter the ICU]?” (P14, CHG RN)

We identified five key themes based on the coded data; namely teamwork in a pressure cooker , healthcare team cohesion , applying past lessons to present challenges , knowledge gaps , and altruistic behaviors . The researchers propose that stressors arising from the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the healthcare team’s resilience. In addition, strong healthcare team cohesion, selfless behaviors among the healthcare team, shared knowledge, and job competence within the healthcare team, enhanced resilient performance.

The healthcare team experienced significant stress and uncertainty, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is consistent with previous research that has shown that the unprecedented nature of the pandemic led to challenging working conditions, limited resources, lack of information, and concerns about infecting loved ones [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. The collective global impact of COVID-19 on healthcare systems is likely a contributing factor to these stressors [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ].

Our study, along with those conducted by Anjara et al. (2021)[ 49 ] and Kaye-Kauderer et al. (2022) [ 50 ], found that solidarity and camaraderie among healthcare professionals improve resilience. Specifically, Anjara et al. observed increased collaboration among the healthcare professionals they studied in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic, while Kaye-Kauderer et al. identified team camaraderie among their sample of front-line healthcare workers from New York. Kinsella et al. (2023) [ 51 ] reported that COVID − 19 offered frontline workers in the UK the opportunity to work together toward a common goal. Potential explanations for these findings align with the concepts of social capital proposed by Coleman [ 52 ] and social identification with other as proposed by Drury [ 54 ]. Coleman suggests an individual’s skills and capabilities are enhanced through their interdependent relationships with others [ 52 ]. Drury found in communities affected by disasters, mutual aid and support emerged from a shared social identity, which serves to strengthen the community [ 53 ]. Brooks et al. (2021) [ 54 ] conducted a study with healthcare, police, and commercial sectors in England. They found it was important for these individuals to receive support from and provide support to their colleagues to mitigate the psychological impact of disaster exposure [ 54 ]. In addition, like our findings, Aufegger and colleague’s 2019 systematic review [ 55 ] found that social support in acute care healthcare teams creates a supportive atmosphere where team members help each other communicate problems, fulfill needs, and deal with stress.

Our results are consistent with those of Liu et al. (2020) [ 32 ] and Banerjee et al. (2021) [ 44 ] who each found that healthcare professionals frequently feel a sense of personal responsibility to overcome challenges. One potential explanation for this may be the influence of collectivism in their cultures. Similarly, our study suggests the sense of camaraderie among healthcare professionals may also contribute to a sense of responsibility and increased altruistic behavior. However, other studies have highlighted different perspectives on healthcare professionals’ sense of responsibility and duty. Godkin and Markwell’s (2003) [ 56 ] revealed that healthcare professionals’ sense of responsibility during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak was dependent on the protective measures and support offered by the healthcare system where most SARS infected patients were hospitalized. More recently, Gray et al. (2021) reported that nurses’ sense of responsibility stems from their ethical obligations, regardless of potential personal or familial risks [ 57 ].

The altruistic behaviors described by our participants helped maintain the performance of the healthcare team. It is too soon to see the long-term impact from working in this high-pressure environment; however, past research by Liu et al. (2012) [ 58 ] and Wu (2009) [ 59 ] demonstrated that “altruistic-risk acceptance” during the SARS outbreak was shown to decrease depressive symptoms among hospital employees in China.

Our research on resilience has important implications for healthcare organizations and professionals. In order to ready themselves for forthcoming events, healthcare systems must emphasize the significance of shared knowledge and its influence on the healthcare team’s ability to foresee and monitor effectively. This knowledge can help the healthcare organization function as a unified entity, rather than as individuals in separate roles or clusters within the organization to improve healthcare team preparedness. Establishing a cohesive, clinically competent healthcare team benefits the organization and the patients served. Measures to enhance social support, improve communication and ensure clinical competence maintain healthcare team resilience.

There are several limitations to consider when interpreting the results of this study. First, the sample was obtained using purposive snowball sampling, which may have introduced sampling bias and may not accurately represent the larger population of healthcare team members who worked during the COVID-19, as 95% of the sample were white. Second, our study did not have equal representation of all interprofessional team members. It is possible that a more heterogenous sample regarding role, race and gender may have introduced additional codes. Additionally, the PI (JA) worked as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesiologist (CRNA) in acute care during the pandemic and personal experience may have introduced confirmation bias. Also, the focus of our research was to fill a gap in the existing knowledge of what is known about healthcare team resilience in pandemic disasters, and help to answer if and how it intersects with individual and organizational resilience. It is possible this novel conceptualization of healthcare team as a cohesive singular conscious source of knowledge did not adequately address this.

Steps to ensure rigor and mitigate any potential shortcomings of qualitative data analysis were the maintenance of a reflexive journal, a willingness of the PI to let go of unsupported ideas and constant verification of codes and themes with the research mentor (MN) for coherence and consistency within the coded data, selected methodology and research questions.

Overall, the extracted themes of teamwork in a pressure cooker; healthcare team cohesion; applying past lessons to present challenges; knowledge gaps; and altruistic behaviors illustrate comparable experiences within the healthcare team. As healthcare professionals and organizations continue to navigate the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises, our findings provide valuable insights into how team cohesion, along with altruistic behaviors, may enhance resilience capabilities to create and maintain a unified resilient healthcare team.

Data availability

The data for this study are confidential as required by the IRB approval. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the data are not publicly available. Additional information about the research method, Interview questions, informant data, and the study in general can be requested from the corresponding author, J.A.

Berlin G, Singhal S, Lapointe M, Schulz J. Challenges emerge for the US healthcare system as COVID-19 cases rise. 2020;9.

Stevens JP, O’Donoghue A, Horng S, Tabb K. Healthcare’s earthquake: Lessons from complex adaptive systems to develop Covid-19-responsive measures and models. 2020.

Kopach-Konrad R, Lawley M, Criswell M, Hasan I, Chakraborty S, Pekny J, et al. Applying systems Engineering principles in improving Health Care Delivery. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(S3):431–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Compton WD, Fanjiang G, Grossman JH, Reid PP. Institute of Medicine (U.S.), National Academy of Engineering. Building a better delivery system: a new engineering/health care partnership [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2005 [cited 2021 Feb 12]. http://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3378176 .

Hollnagel E, Woods DD. Resilience Engineering concepts and precepts. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2006. p. 416.

Google Scholar  

Wiig S, O’Hara JK. Resilient and responsive healthcare services and systems: challenges and opportunities in a changing world. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1037.

Nemeth C, Wears RL, Patel S, Rosen G, Cook R. Resilience is not control: healthcare, crisis management, and ICT. Cogn Tech Work. 2011;13(3):189–202.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hollnagel E. Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials [Internet]. 1st ed. Routledge; 2017 [cited 2022 May 7]. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351780766 .

Braithwaite J, Wears RL, Hollnagel E. Resilient health care: turning patient safety on its head. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27(5):418–20.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Madni AM, Jackson S. Towards a conceptual Framework for Resilience Engineering. IEEE Syst J. 2009;3(2):181–91.

Carthey J. Institutional resilience in healthcare systems. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(1):29–32.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hollnagel E. The Four cornerstones of Resilience Engineering. In: Dekker, editor. Resilience engineering perspcetives. E. Hollnagel&S. Ashgate: Farnham, UK; 2009. pp. 117–33.

Fridell M, Edwin S, von Schreeb J, Saulnier DD. Health System Resilience: what are we talking about? A scoping review mapping characteristics and keywords. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;9(1):6–16.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Curtin M, Richards HL, Fortune DG. Resilience among health care workers while working during a pandemic: a systematic review and meta synthesis of qualitative studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2022;95:102173.

Ambrose JW, Layne DM, Catchpole K, Evans H, Nemeth LS. A qualitative protocol to examine Resilience Culture in Healthcare teams during COVID-19. Healthcare. 2021;9(9):1168.

Carayon P, Hundt AS, Karsh B, Gurses AP, Alvarado CJ, Smith M, et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(Suppl 1):i50–8.

Thordsen ML, Kyne MM, Klein G, A Model of Advanced Team Decision Making and Performance.: Summary Report: [Internet]. Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center; 1994 Sep [cited 2021 Feb 13]. http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA400497 .

Zsambok CE. Advanced Team Decision Making: A Model and Training Implications.

Klein GA. Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press; 1988.

Doyle L, McCabe C, Keogh B, Brady A, McCann M. An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. J Res Nurs. 2020;25(5):443–55.

Siedlecki SL. Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clin Nurse Spec. 2020;34(1):8–12.

Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing qualitative research. Second. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999. p. 406.

Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative Data Analysis for Health Services Research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–72.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117.

Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage; 1985.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative rearchers. Los Angeles, USA: Sage; 2021.

Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1998.

Braun V, Clarke V. What can thematic analysis offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qualitative Stud Health Well-being. 2014;9(1):26152.

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological [Internet]. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2012 [cited 2022 May 15]. pp. 57–71. http://content.apa.org/books/13620-004 .

Braun V, Clarke V. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychol. 2022;9(1):3–26.

Liu Y, Zhai Z, Han Y, Liu Y, Liu F, Hu D. Experiences of front-line nurses combating coronavirus disease‐2019 in China: a qualitative analysis. Public Health Nurs. 2020;37(5):757–63.

Catania G, Zanini M, Hayter M, Timmins F, Dasso N, Ottonello G, et al. Lessons from Italian front-line nurses’ experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a qualitative descriptive study. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29(3):404–11.

Croghan IT, Chesak SS, Adusumalli J, Fischer KM, Beck EW, Patel SR et al. Stress, Resilience, and Coping of Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Primary Care and Community Health [Internet]. 2021;12. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85104122303&doi=10.1177%2f21501327211008448&partnerID=40&md5=96ad0164880c9725ce14d534e3c3117

Arnetz JE, Goetz CM, Arnetz BB, Arble E. Nurse reports of stressful situations during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative analysis of survey responses. IJERPH. 2020;17(21):8126.

Dagyaran I, Risom SS, Berg SK, Højskov IE, Heiden M, Bernild C, et al. Like soldiers on the front– a qualitative study understanding the frontline healthcare professionals’ experience of treating and caring for patients with COVID-19. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):666.

Goh Y, Ow Yong QYJ, Chen TH, Ho SHC, Chee YIC, Chee TT. The impact of COVID-19 on nurses working in a University Health System in Singapore: a qualitative descriptive study. Int J Mental Health Nurs. 2021;30(3):643–52.

LoGiudice JA, Bartos S. Experiences of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2021;32(1):14–26.

O’Brien JM, Bae FA, Kawchuk J, Reimche E, Abramyk CA, Kitts C et al. We were treading water. Experiences of healthcare providers in Canadian ICUs during COVID-19 visitor restrictions: a qualitative descriptive study.

Perraud F, Ecarnot F, Loiseau M, Laurent A, Fournier A, Lheureux F, et al. A qualitative study of reinforcement workers’ perceptions and experiences of working in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a PsyCOVID-ICU substudy. Sharma GA, editor. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3):e0264287.

Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M. Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among Health Care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020;323(21):2133.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Speroni KG, Seibert DJ, Mallinson RK. Nurses’ perceptions on Ebola Care in the United States, Part 2: a qualitative analysis. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2015;45(11):544–50.

Sonis J, Pathman DE, Read S, Gaynes BN, Canter C, Curran P, et al. Effects of Healthcare Organization Actions and policies related to COVID-19 on Perceived Organizational Support among U.S. internists: a National Study. J Healthc Manag. 2022;67(3):192–205.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Banerjee D, Sathyanarayana Rao TS, Kallivayalil RA, Javed A. Psychosocial Framework of Resilience: navigating needs and adversities during the pandemic, a qualitative exploration in the Indian Frontline Physicians. Front Psychol. 2021;12:622132.

Freudenberg LS, Paez D, Giammarile F, Cerci J, Modiselle M, Pascual TNB, et al. Global impact of COVID-19 on Nuclear Medicine departments: an International Survey in April 2020. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(9):1278–83.

Haldane V, Morgan GT. From resilient to transilient health systems: the deep transformation of health systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Policy Plann. 2021;36(1):134–5.

Shrestha N, Shad MY, Ulvi O, Khan MH, Karamehic-Muratovic A, Nguyen USDT, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on globalization. One Health. 2020;11:100180.

Jean WC, Ironside NT, Sack KD, Felbaum DR, Syed HR. The impact of COVID-19 on neurosurgeons and the strategy for triaging non-emergent operations: a global neurosurgery study. Acta Neurochir. 2020;162(6):1229–40.

Anjara S, Fox R, Rogers L, De Brún A, McAuliffe E. Teamworking in Healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-method study. IJERPH. 2021;18(19):10371.

Kaye-Kauderer H, Loo G, Murrough JW, Feingold JH, Feder A, Peccoralo L, et al. Effects of Sleep, Exercise, and Leadership Support on Resilience in Frontline Healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Occup Environ Med. 2022;64(5):416–20.

Kinsella EL, Muldoon OT, Lemon S, Stonebridge N, Hughes S, Sumner RC. In it together? Exploring solidarity with frontline workers in the United Kingdom and Ireland during COVID-19. Br J Social Psychol. 2023;62(1):241–63.

Coleman JS. Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital. Am J Sociol. 1988;94:S95–120.

Drury J, Carter H, Cocking C, Ntontis E, Tekin Guven S, Amlôt R. Facilitating collective psychosocial resilience in the Public in emergencies: twelve recommendations based on the Social Identity Approach. Front Public Health. 2019;7:141.

Brooks SK, Dunn R, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ, Greenberg N. Protecting the psychological wellbeing of staff exposed to disaster or emergency at work: a qualitative study. BMC Psychol. 2019;7(1):78.

Aufegger L, Shariq O, Bicknell C, Ashrafian H, Darzi A. Can shared leadership enhance clinical team management? A systematic review. LHS. 2019;32(2):309–35.

Godkin D, Markwell H. The Duty to Care of Healthcare Professionals: Ethical Issues and Guidelines for Policy Development. Submitted to SARS Expert Panel Secretariat.:23.

Gray K, Dorney P, Hoffman L, Crawford A. Nurses’ pandemic lives: a mixed-methods study of experiences during COVID-19. Appl Nurs Res. 2021;60:151437.

Liu X, Kakade M, Fuller CJ, Fan B, Fang Y, Kong J, et al. Depression after exposure to stressful events: lessons learned from the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic. Compr Psychiatr. 2012;53(1):15–23.

Wu P, Fang Y, Guan Z, Fan B, Kong J, Yao Z, et al. The psychological impact of the SARS Epidemic on Hospital employees in China: exposure, risk perception, and Altruistic Acceptance of Risk. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302–11.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank all the interviewed healthcare team participants for their time and sharing their personal stories and for their continued service during the COVID-19 pandemic. We would also like to acknowledge Ayaba Logan, the Research and Education Informationist, Mohan Madisetti, the MUSC College of Nursing Director of Research, the staff of the MUSC Center for Academic Excellence and the reviewers of this journal for their constructive criticism.

This research (software, transcription services, etc.) was solely funded by the Principal Investigator, J.A.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

John W. Ambrose, Lynne S. Nemeth, Diana M. Layne & Michelle Nichols

Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

Ken Catchpole

Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

Heather L. Evans

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization J.A., K.C., L.N., D.L., H.E., and M.N.; methodology J.A. and M.N.; J.A. led the study, recruited the interviewees, conducted interviews, led the data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. J.A., and M.N. conducted the data analyses; review and editing K.C., H.E., D.L., and M.N.; supervision M.N.; research project administration J.A. and M.N.; funding acquisition J.A. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John W. Ambrose .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study presented no greater than minimal risk to participants and met exempt status per regulatory criteria established by 45 CFR 46.104 and 21 CFR 56.104. The study protocol and all materials were approved by the MUSC Institutional Review Board (IRB), [Pro00100917 ]. All study procedures were followed in accordance with these standards.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ambrose, J.W., Catchpole, K., Evans, H.L. et al. Healthcare team resilience during COVID-19: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 459 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10895-3

Download citation

Received : 25 February 2023

Accepted : 25 March 2024

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10895-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Resilience Engineering
• Healthcare System
• Healthcare Administration
• Healthcare Team
• Thematic Analysis
• Qualitative Research

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

6 in 10 U.S. Catholics are in favor of abortion rights, Pew Research report finds

Jason DeRose

Pope Francis remains popular among U.S. Catholics, with 75% having favorable views of him, according to a Pew Research report. But many self-identified Catholics disagree with various teachings of their church. Andrew Medichini/AP hide caption

Pope Francis remains popular among U.S. Catholics, with 75% having favorable views of him, according to a Pew Research report. But many self-identified Catholics disagree with various teachings of their church.

Catholics in the U.S., one of the country's largest single Christian groups, hold far more diverse views on abortion rights than the official teaching of their church.

While the Catholic Church itself holds that abortion is wrong and should not be legal, 6 in 10 U.S. adult Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a newly released profile of Catholicism by Pew Research .

Catholic opinion about abortion rights, according to the report, tends to align with political leanings: Fewer Catholic Republicans favor legal abortion than Catholic Democrats. And Pew says Hispanic Catholics, who make up one-third of the U.S. church, are slightly more in favor of legal abortion than white Catholics.

Despite church prohibitions, Catholics still choose IVF to have children

Pew found that 20% of the U.S. population identifies as Catholic, but only about 3 in 10 say they attend mass regularly. Opinions about abortion rights appear to be related to how often someone worships — just 34% of Catholics who attend mass weekly say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, whereas that number jumps to 68% among those who attend mass monthly or less.

Most U.S. Catholics are white (57%), but that number has dropped by 8 percentage points since 2007, according the new report. About 33% identify as Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% Black, and 3% describe themselves as another race.

Pew Research also found that as of February, Pope Francis remains highly popular, with 75% of U.S. Catholics rating him favorably. However, there is a partisan divide, with Catholic Democrats more strongly supporting him.

About 4 in 10 U.S. Catholics view Francis as a major agent of change, with 3 in 10 saying he is a minor agent of change.

Catholic Church works to explain what same-sex blessings are and are not

Pew reports that many U.S. Catholics would welcome more change. Some 83% say they want the church to allow the use of contraception, 69% say priests should be allowed to get married, 64% say women should be allowed to become priests, and 54% say the Catholic Church should recognize same-sex marriage.

In December 2023, the Vatican issued guidance to priests that they may bless people in same-sex relationships. But the church insists those blessings not be construed in any way to be a form of marriage or even take place as part of a worship service.

• Pope Francis
• Abortion rights
• Catholic church
• Pew Research