Typically qualitative methodology involves obtaining rich and detailed information that can provide a deep insight into a particular behaviour.
Data is generally collected within a natural setting, for example, a typical room. The ways in which it can be collected are varied; focus groups (where the interaction between group members is important), interviews (of which 4 types of questions can be asked according to Spradley (1979)), and observations. A criticism of all these though is that they are all subjective to the researcher, as one investigator may interpret the same sentence in a totally different way than another.
In terms of analysing qualitative methods, the Line-by-line transcription technique is better in terms of analysis than the Jefferson method. By identifying initial themes, then common headings for those themes that occur more than once, and then finally a general name for such recurring themes, so much meaning can be drawn from a simple sentence. There are times however (admittedly these are few and far between) when quantitative techniques can be applied in order to analyse qualitative data. Young (1981) found a least squares procedure is one such technique.
So this poses the overall question of whether qualitative methods, as a whole, should be considered scientific?
I think that they should. Just because a particular method of analysing data takes a little longer to complete, or is classed unstructured compared to the standard ‘numbers’ approach, does not mean that it is any less scientific.
Young (1981) http://www.springerlink.com/content/bv2n575t87265041/fulltext.pdf
amandasau 
I don’t think it is a matter of how long or unstructured qualitative methods are that make them unscientific but rather the subjectivity of the method. Qualitative data extracted from any of the methods that involve analysing what people say can be highly suspect and subjective. Firstly, a researcher must analyse what the person has said and how they have said it, which is subjective. There is also the issue of whether what is said actually reflects how the person thinks or feels, or if it is a lie (in order to sound socially acceptable etc).
There is no doubt that qualitative research is very important and useful, and there are ways of reducing subjectivity (for example with inter-observer reliability). However, qualitative methods still has a question mark over it as to whether it can truly be classed as truly scientific…but does it matter so long as it’s useful?
Pingback: Homework for my TA: Comments made during week 11 « laurencedown
I think you coulve maybe listed the weaknesses and benefits in more detail:
-The data obtained cant always be generalised to the population as its just one persons exp
-The data is very subjective, the researcher could interpret it however they want
BUT
-the data is incredibly rich in detail, we wouldnt get this from quantative data like frequency tables, we’re actually finding out reasons/explanations
-as the studies are conducted in a natural setting, the participant is put at ease and may be more willing to discuss subjects in more detail.
Science is all about being objective,reliable and valid. I dont think qualitative methods are strictly scientific, but i do think they make an incredibly big contribution to our knowledge. A lot of Psychology is more focused on theories which cant be proved and is often made up of case studies and opinions.
I think it is a very valid point that qualitative research is very subjective and can be very biased towards how the experimenter interprets it or what they have set out to find. However, by implying that qualitative research is not scientific due to this is implies that because quantitative research is considered scientific that it is not subject to experimenter bias. This is not the case. In psychology research is often based on studying behaviour, therefore the interpretation of particular behaviours can be subjective. For example, if the researcher is investigating whether extraverts are more likely to display aggressive behaviour by counting the amount of displays of this behaviour, the 2 variables are both subjective to experimenter bias. Different researchers may describe extraversion differently and may believe that different quantities of certain traits are required to make you an extravert, and levels of aggressiveness can be measured differently based on the situation and experience. Therefore, even though this is a quantitative study it is still very open to experimenter bias. This could suggest that qualitative research is no less scientific than quantitative research.
Pingback: The last blog and comments for the semester. Yay! « psucd8