Qualitative Methodological Approaches, Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51137/wrp.ijarbm.713Keywords:
Qualitative Research, Qualitative Research Designs, Purposive Sampling, Qualitative Data Collection, Digital Qualitative MethodsAbstract
This paper provides an analysis of qualitative research methodologies, concentrating on research designs, sampling strategies, and data collection techniques. It traces the evolution of qualitative enquiry, examines its philosophical foundations, and addresses common critiques regarding subjectivity, generalisability, and methodological rigour. Six primary qualitative research designs are explored in detail: generic qualitative research, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, narrative research, phenomenology (including interpretative phenomenological analysis), and action research. The paper emphasises non-probability sampling methods, such as purposive, convenience, snowball, and theoretical sampling, and highlights the importance of achieving data saturation. Various qualitative data collection methods are presented, including interviews, focus groups, document analysis, photovoice, and observation, along with practical considerations for their effective implementation. The discussion highlights the capacity of qualitative research to capture rich, context-sensitive insights into human experiences and social phenomena, thereby supporting
scholarly advancement and practical applications across diverse fields.
References
Aboulkacem, A. R., Aboulkacem, S., & Haas, L. E. (2021). Photovoice 2.0: A comprehensive research framework for the digital generation. TechTrends, 65(5), 874-883..
Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9–19.
Albaret, M. (2023). Digital observation. International organizations and research methods, 31.
Alsaawi, A. (2014). Critical review of qualitative interviews. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(4).
Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A. (1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 94–97.
Baker, L. (2006). Observation: A complex research method. Library trends, 55(1), 171–189.
Blanche, M. T. & Blanche, M. J. T., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (Eds.). (2006). Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Juta and Company Ltd.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2006). Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field methods, 18(3), 245-266.
Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.
Brinkmann, S., Jacobsen, M. H., Kristiansen, S. (2014). Historical overview of qualitative research in the social sciences. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, 17–42.
Bryda, G., & Costa, A. P. (2023). Qualitative research in digital era: Innovations, methodologies and collaborations. Social Sciences, 12(10), 570.
Byrne, M. M. (2001). Understanding life experiences through a phenomenological approach to research. AORN journal, 73(4), 830–830.
Chan, Z. C., Fung, Y. L., & Chien, W. T. (2013). Bracketing in phenomenology: Only undertaken in the data collection and analysis process. The qualitative report, 18(30), 1–9.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 305-327.
Chen, H., Wang, Y., & Chang, C. (2025). Enhancing qualitative inquiry: AI-assisted focus group data collection. Qualitative Research Journal, 1-17.
Clandinin, D. J., & Caine, V. (2013). Narrative inquiry. In Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 166–179). Routledge.
Coombs, H. (2022). Case study research defined. White Paper.
Coombs, H. (2022). Case study research is defined. White Paper.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Costa, A. P., Bryda, G., Christou, P. A., & Kasperiuniene, J. (2025). AI as a Co-researcher in the Qualitative Research Workflow: Transforming Human-AI Collaboration. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24, 16094069251383739.
Couldry, N., Fotopoulou, A., & Dickens, L. (2016). Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(1), 118-137.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
Ellis, J. L., & Hart, D. L. (2023). Strengthening the Choice for a Generic Qualitative Research Design. Qualitative report, 28(6).
Elman, C., Gerring, J., & Mahoney, J. (2016). Case study research: Putting the quant into the qual. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 375–391.
Forberg, P., & Schilt, K. (2023). What is ethnographic about digital ethnography? A sociological perspective. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1156776.
Freeman, T. (2006). ‘Best practice’in focus group research: making sense of different views. Journal of advanced nursing, 56(5), 491-497.
Friese, S. (2016). Computer-assisted grounded theory analysis with ATLAS. ti.Gergen, M. M. & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative enquiry: Tensions and transformations. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 1025–1046.
Glaser, B. G. (2014). Applying grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 13(01), 46–50.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1998). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber, 4.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Gobo, G. (2005). Renaissance of qualitative methods. In Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 6, No. 3). https://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.html
Greenhalgh, T., Russell, J., Swinglehurst, D. (2005). Narrative methods in quality improvement research. BMJ Quality & Safety, 14(6), 443–449.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic enquiries. Ectj, 29(2), 75-91.
Gubrium, A., Harper, K., & Otañez, M. (2016). Participatory visual and digital research in action. Routledge.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: problems and prospects. Ethnography and education, 1(1), 3–14.
Hammersley, M. (2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it?. Ethnography and education, 13(1), 1-17.
Herbert, S. (2000). For ethnography. Progress in human geography, 24(4), 550–568.
Irani, E. (2019). The use of videoconferencing for qualitative interviewing: Opportunities, challenges, and considerations. Clinical nursing research, 28(1), 3-8.
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 9(1), 24152.
Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International journal of qualitative methods, 13(1), 37–52.
Keen, S., Lomeli-Rodriguez, M., & Joffe, H. (2022). From challenge to opportunity: virtual qualitative research during COVID-19 and beyond. International journal of qualitative methods, 21, 16094069221105075.
Kennedy, H., Moss, G., Birchall, C., & Moshonas, S. (2015). Balancing the potential and problems of digital methods through action research: Methodological reflections. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 172-186.
Koenitz, H. (2015). Towards a specific theory of interactive digital narrative. In Interactive digital narrative (pp. 91-105). Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been…”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(1), 3–9.
Magida, A. (2024, January). The Use of Digital Tools and Emerging Technologies in Qualitative Research—A Systematic Review of Literature. In World Conference on Qualitative Research (pp. 257–269). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522–526.
Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (2004). Research and evaluation methods in special education.
Moran, D. (2002). Introduction to phenomenology. routledge.
Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The qualitative report, 27(1), 64–77.
Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of advanced nursing, 41(3), 306-313.
Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on medical education, 8(2), 90–97.
Nizza, I. E., Farr, J., & Smith, J. A. (2021). Achieving excellence in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): Four markers of high quality. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 369–386.
O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research.
Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2012). Qualitative research in the digital era: Obstacles and opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 352-367.
Patton, M. Q. (2003). Qualitative evaluation checklist. Evaluation checklists project, 21, 1–13.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept, thick description. The qualitative report, 11(3), 538–549.
Putney, L. G., Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., & Kelly, G. J. (1999). Conversations: Evolution of qualitative research methodology: Looking beyond defence to possibilities. Reading research quarterly, 34(3), 368–377.
Ritter, C. S. (2022). Rethinking digital ethnography: A qualitative approach to understanding interfaces. Qualitative Research, 22(6), 916-932.
Roth, C., & Koenitz, H. (2017, October). Towards creating a body of evidence-based interactive digital narrative design knowledge: approaches and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Multimedia Alternate Realities (pp. 19-24).
Savin-Baden, M., & Niekerk, L. V. (2007). Narrative inquiry: Theory and practice. Journal of geography in higher education, 31(3), 459–472.
Shinebourne, P. (2011). The theoretical underpinnings of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Existential Analysis: Journal of the Society for Existential Analysis, 22(1).
Smit, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Observations in qualitative inquiry: When what you see is not what you see. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918816766.
Sutton-Brown, C. A. (2014). Photovoice: A methodological guide. Photography and culture, 7(2), 169–185.
Tagliagambe, S. (2023). Phenomenology and the digital world: Problems and perspectives. Foundations of Science, 28(4), 1157-1174.
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International journal for quality in health care, 19(6), 349–357.
Van Manen, M. (2017). But is it phenomenology?. Qualitative health research, 27(6), 775–779.
Varis, P. (2015). Digital ethnography. In The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 55-68). Routledge
Volpe, C. R. (2019). Digital diaries: new uses of PhotoVoice in participatory research with young people. Children's Geographies, 17(3), 361-370.
Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health education & behaviour, 24(3), 369–387.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: a review. International journal of social research methodology, 1(3), 181-203.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative science quarterly, 26(1), 58–65.
Yin, R. K. (2000). Case study evaluations: a decade of progress?. In Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 185–193). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Yin, R. K. (2000). Case study evaluations: a decade of progress?. In Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 185–193). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ayanda Magida (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
