Editorial

For a long time qualitative research has been considered less scientific, less valid, and less objective than—yes, than what? What is the standard against which qualitative research has been found to be a second-class approach? Scrutinizing the arguments that end up placing qualitative research in the corner, we can see that the standards are derived from a kind of generalized approach to research, which advocates a model of science that is characterized by a certain distance from the phenomena in question and is based on mathematics. However, not all phenomena are measurable, e.g. phenomena in the human realm such as suffering and well-being, and whether we want to be distant from them or not, we cannot, since they are everywhere around and close to us. We cannot do research on qualitative phenomena as if they are a kind of reality that is lying outside of the window, separate from us, separate from life.

Is it then the case that all qualitative research is of good quality? Of course not. Like all research there are good as well as bad examples. However, qualitative research is suffering from having its “big brother” too close, seeing and valuing all activities within the qualitative research arena from a wholly different approach, a different paradigm. This is confusing for many researchers who, consequently, end up practising what can be called “mixed discourse”.

For some decades now, the health care domain has included qualitative research. Researchers have focused on phenomena that were previously neglected due to the limits of the quantitative approach. The meaning of illness and suffering has been illuminated and it has contributed to our knowledge of how we are to live good and healthy lives. Without neglecting any positive outcomes of the scientific work that has so far been done, it is easy to state that too little has happened; too few exiting findings have been shown. Health care is moving towards a more human and holistically characterized care, and we want to believe that qualitative research has had impact on this, but we want more to happen.

The still somewhat neglectful attitude towards qualitative research, besides its troublesome relation to positivistic paradigms, has to do with internal paradigmatic problems. It is worrying to hear people say that in qualitative research we do not have to pay attention to validity or objectivity, and that qualitative research results cannot be generalized. The opposite is to be argued: if we want our research to be scientific—in the word's true meaning—then it has to be objective, it has to be valid, and the findings should be presented in such a way that they can be generalized. Validity, objectivity and the idea of generalization do not belong to a particular paradigm of research, instead these concepts stand for aspects that distinguish scientific research from other similar human activities, such as journalism and novel writing, or from everyday investigations when we want to find out the most effective car cleaning lotion, the best bakery recipe, or the best horse riding saddle. In all these activities we sincerely work with a goal of quality, we do want a good, or even the best, result, but even so, we cannot say that we are doing scientific research.

Scientific research does not differ from everyday activities in that we have different methods. It is the opposite: in scientific research we use the same methods as we know from everyday life, where we dialogue with people in friendly conversations, we observe the kids playing in order to find out the best clothes for their comfort and to save the amount of washing loads. Last time I was at Arlanda airport I was stopped by a man wanting me to fill in a questionnaire with questions about what I had done waiting for my flight: had I consumed anything, bought anything, etc. “Was this research?” I asked him. “No”, he replied, “only a little investigation to guide them when they should re-construct the terminal”. At home the other day, I did an experiment with my horses; I served them the evening food in a different way than normal and observed their reactions in order to figure out a better way to deal with the everyday routine. When a friend came round, I told her about the test and its results. She became interested and was going back home to try the same thing with her horses.

The more we think through our everyday lives we see that all the methods, all the equipment and techniques that we use in scientific research, are also present in our everyday activities. Therefore, the choice of methods cannot be what distinguishes scientific research from everyday activity. Instead, that which makes research scientific is the attitude with which we methodologically work through the research. And this attitude, in order to serve the scientific purpose, must be well rooted in sound epistemology. We must know what we are doing, we must know how it should be carried out in order to be most valid, objective and generalizable, and it helps if we know why we are doing it.

Of course, scientific research must be objective. We must adopt such an attitude that makes us see the phenomenon we are studying through all previous thoughts, feelings and opinions that we hold in relation to it. With Gadamer's1 words we can say that we aim at seeing “the otherness” of the phenomenon, we want to see how it is different from what we thought of it on beforehand. We want to be surprised; we want to find that we were wrong, that we did not know at all. Moreover, we need to know how this is accomplished. This is how scientific research differs from other activities.

Of course, the research must be valid; because, relying on our results, health care personnel are taking care of other people, therapists are dealing with people's life projects, their inner thoughts and deep emotions, teachers are helping young people to gain knowledge on which they build their lives, and social workers are supporting people who live in misery. These patients, clients and students rely on the fact that the knowledge that guides their helpers is valid, and not only valid in general, but valid for them. This is how scientific research differs from other activities.

Of course, the findings must be generalizable to other people than those involved in the concrete study. If the findings that one has from a research project cannot be generalized to people outside that very study, it could still be important and good in several ways but cannot be considered as scientific work. However, of course, we have to problematize the idea of generalization, and we have to find out what kind of generalization is the best for that very phenomenon, for that kind of research, and in order for the research to respond to the actual aim and questions.

All kinds of research have generalization problems. For example, in statistics there must first of all be a specifically, representative and randomly chosen sample that is responding to pre-constructed forms, which is problematic because it evens out meaningful differences, oddities. This is a problem because even if we as humans are so surprisingly alike each other, at the same time we are different, even unique. Another problem in statistically based research is that the findings are related to groups. This demands from the researchers a great deal of interpretive work in order for them to practice the results in relation to the individual, be it a patient, a client or a student.

In qualitative research the generalization problem is different. From having information about the individual experience we need to move to the bigger perspective, supported by an awareness of “the general meaning” being already present in the “particular meaning”, as well as “the particular” that is in “the general”.2 In phenomenological research, as an example, generalization is supported by the epistemological foundation of the approach that is escaping dualism, and by the aim of reaching a general structure of meaning for the phenomenon in question.

However, people working with phenomenology as well as all other researchers must understand that all kinds of general meaning always is contextual, as Merleau-Ponty argues in several texts.3 Consequently, every researcher must address the question of to which context her/his findings are related and can be considered valid. Another aspect of phenomenology that is important in relation to the generalization issue is the focus on a phenomenon. That is, the main emphasis is not on the informants and their experiences, even if this of course is of crucial importance. The emphasis in phenomenologically based research is on the phenomenon's structure of meanings, which are explicitly depicted and characterized by and through the descriptions that we gain from the subjects and their experiences of something that we study.

For researchers who end up with the emphasis on the informants and their various experiences the problem is somewhat different. Then, the generalization issue is maybe a bit trickier, but is still important, since the aim of all research is to generate findings that can be applied beyond the specific study. With the term transferability, we can include the idea of generalization in all qualitative research. It means that results, e.g. descriptions, interpretations or theories, are applicable within a specified setting. Generalization is then supported by the idea that Gadamer4 terms anwendung, which in English is usually translated as ‘application’. According to this idea, generalization is a question of how the research findings can come into practice, how they can be used. This is an important duty of every researcher, and naturally so, because why else do we do research if we don't want it to be used?! Every researcher has to express, as explicitly as possible, to what other areas, what other people, the findings can be applied, practised, and tested out.

The transferability of results from a qualitative study should be based on coherent and logical reasoning of the limitations for applicability of the study findings. The possibility of transferability is naturally dependent on the quality of the study, including the study design, sampling techniques, as well as the level of objectivity and validity, and the researcher's ability of reflexivity. Large study groups do not necessarily increase transferability. Rather, good qualitative studies rely on rich and ‘textured’ data from relatively few participants that make the foundation for deep analyses. Again, scientific research differs from other activities in this one aspect.

In May this year, the International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being—QHW sponsored the 4th Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Qualitative Methods in the Service of Health, hosted by Växjö University, School of Health Sciences and Social Work The theme for the conference read: ”Epistemological practice and practical epistemology: getting qualitative research out of the doldrums”. The aim of the conference was to address the dilemma of too much too poor research. The conference organizers can verify that there were a number of papers addressing the issue of qualitative research quality. Several researchers related their findings, and particular aspects of them, to epistemological and methodological ideas they could see had supported a good outcome, or that were missing in the case of poor outcomes. In addition, the keynote speakers were invited to address the conference theme. In this edition of the QHW, we have the pleasure to present two such contributions from the conference,5 presented in the Philosophical paper section. Marcia Sá Cavalcante Schuback presents a thoughtful reflection on attention that really hits the heart of all scientific research. With this paper, she has given us that very epistemological key with which we can open up onto the deep secret of how to understand and describe life. Lillemor R.-M. Hallberg is giving a thorough odyssey of the development of Grounded Theory. In this paper, we are given an understanding of both the core of Grounded Theory and the various ways of working out the same approach.

The grounded theory-thread is taken up by a group of researchers who have conducted a review of a new book by Kathy Charmaz: Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Kathy Charmaz is an innovator of GT and she has contributed to the development by relating grounded theory to the constructivist movement.

A few last words about the article format that the QHW practice. Marcia Sá Cavalcante Schuback has written an article using a format not commonly practised in empirically oriented journals. However, for several reasons the editors wanted to keep the original format of the paper. One such reason is to signal that we are not bound to a particular way of writing a scientific paper in the QHW. Of course, we have guidelines, but they should not be understood as something that is limiting the creativity of the author. Instead, we want our guidelines to serve as supporting principles that will increase the readability of the article. As with all methodological questions, the guidelines are meant to be in service of the article, not the other way around. Karin Dahlberg Co-editor

The International Human Science Research Conference will be held in Italy at the University of Trento, Rovereto Branch, June 13–16, 2007. The theme is “New Frontiers of Phenomenology: Beyond Postmodernism in Empirical Research.,” and the deadline for abstracts is January 31, 2007. For information go to: http://www.unitn.it/events/ihsrc07" or hte IHSRC newsletter website http://www.seattleu.edu/artsci/psychology/ihsr.asp

I sincerely thank reader Jonathan Smith, Birkbeck College, London UK, for thoughtful comments on this text.

Notes

1. Gadamer, H-G. Truth and Method, 1995, p. 269.

2. cf. Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of Perception, 1995.

3. cf. Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of Perception, 1995.

4. Gadamer, H-G. Truth and Method, 1995, p. 308.

5. In the following edition of the QHW there will be more key-note papers.