Qualitative Research

This chapter outlines the basic principles of qualitative research in the context of mental health. We begin by discussing the philosophy of reality and knowledge production, demonstrating how these discussions filter through to every aspect of qualitative research. We then explain the fundamental elements of qualitative research, including how to formulate a research question, different methodological approaches, the application of qualitative methods in clinical trials, data collection, sampling, and analysis. This chapter also focuses on how qualitative research can make a change, providing unique insights on how to influence policy and engage government. We devote a substantial part of the chapter to research ethics and reflexivity, summarising not only basic bioethical principles, but thinking about ethics from an anti-colonial perspective. We end the chapter by exploring what constitutes high quality qualitative research, laying out some guiding principles and practices for promoting quality. Our aim with this chapter is not to provide an exhaustive account of qualitative research, rather to offer guidance and inspiration to fledgling researchers who would like to find out more.

Keywords

Methodology Epistemology Grounded Theory Participatory Research Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Trials Methods Reflexivity Sampling Quality

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Research Methods in Mental Health
A Comprehensive Guide
, pp. 135 - 155
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009028967.009 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Feyaerts, J., Kusters, W., Van Duppen, Z., et al. (2021). Uncovering the realities of delusional experience in schizophrenia: a qualitative phenomenological study in Belgium. Lancet Psychiatry, 8(9), 784–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00196-6 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Love, B., Vetere, A., & Davis, P. (2020). Understanding addiction, relapse and recovery amongst substance using offenders – a qualitative study informed by developmental psychological theories. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 20(4), 337–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-04-2020-0023 CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, V., McCombie, C., Nikolakopoulos, G., & Morgan, C. (2021). Ethnicity and power in the mental health system: experiences of white British and black Caribbean people with psychosis. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 30, e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796020001043 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

The Lancet, P. (2019). Deeper understanding. Lancet Psychiatry, 6(9), 713. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30304-9 CrossRef Google Scholar

Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research (1st ed.). Polity Press.Google Scholar

Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2014). A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv Biol, 28(5), 1167–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Holden, M., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: understanding research philosophy. The Marketing Review – Market Rev, 4. https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347042772428 Google Scholar

Pilgrim, D. (2014). Some implications of critical realism for mental health research. Social Theory & Health, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2013.17 CrossRef Google Scholar

Alam, M.B. (2019). Qualitative research framework: integrating philosophical and methodological assumptions. Journal of Philosophy, Culture and Religion. DOI: 10.7176/jpcr/40-01 CrossRef Google Scholar

Hiller, J. (2016). Epistemological foundations of objectivist and interpretivist research. In Books and Book Chapters by University of Dayton Faculty. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/books/52 Google Scholar

Blackman, K.M. a. D. (2017). A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers. https://i2insights.org/2017/05/02/philosophy-for-interdisciplinarity/Google Scholar

Feast, L., & Melles, G. (2010). Epistemological positions in design research: a brief review of the literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Education (connected 2010), 28 June–01 July.Google Scholar

Staller, K.M. (2012). Epistemological boot camp: the politics of science and what every qualitative researcher needs to know to survive in the academy. Qualitative Social Work, 12(4), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325012450483 CrossRef Google Scholar

UNHCR. (2022). Global trends. www.unhcr.org/uk/globaltrends.html Google Scholar

Bambra, C., Riordan, R., Ford, J., & Matthews, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health, 74(11), 964–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214401 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Collyer, F., & White, K. (2011). The privatisation of Medicare and the National Health Service, and the global marketisation of healthcare systems. Health Sociol Rev, 20(3), 238–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2011.11003086 CrossRef Google Scholar

Cannella, G. (2015). Qualitative research as living within/transforming complex power relations. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 594–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414554907 CrossRef Google Scholar

Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Rose, D. (2018). Participatory research: real or imagined. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol, 53(8), 765–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1549-3 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S.L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health, 29, 325–50. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fals-Borda, O., & Rhaman, A. (1991). Action and knowledge. The Apex Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reid, C., & Frisby, W. (2008). Continuing the journey: articulating dimensions of feminist participatory action research. In Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934.d12 CrossRef Google Scholar

Varcoe, C. (2006). Doing participatory action research in a racist world. West J Nurs Res, 28(5), 525–40; discussion 561–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945906287706 CrossRef Google Scholar

Jannesari, S. (2022). Exploring the challenges of working with migrants, migrant organisations and migrant communities: an ethnography of participatory action research projects. New Sociological Perspectives, 2(2).Google Scholar

Langdridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: theory, research and method. Pearson.Google Scholar

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis theory, method and research (1st ed.). Sage.Google Scholar

Golsworthy, R., & Coyle, A. (2001). Practitioners’ accounts of religious and spiritual dimension in bereavement therapy. Counsell Psychol Quart, 14(3), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070110037993 CrossRef Google Scholar

Love, B., Vetere, A., & Davis, P. (2020). Should Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) be used with focus groups? Navigating the bumpy road of ‘iterative loops’, idiographic journeys, and ‘phenomenological bridges’. Int J Qualitat Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920921600 Google Scholar

Clare, L. (2003). Managing threats to self: awareness in early stage Alzheimer’s disease. Social Sci Med, 57, 1017–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jarman et al. 2005. Keeping safe, keeping connected: A qualitative study of HIV-positive women’s experiences of partner relationships. Psychology & Health, 20(4), 533–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14768320500083667 Google Scholar

Smith, J., Flowers, P., Larkin, M. (2022). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research (3rd ed.). Sage.CrossRef Google Scholar

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.Google Scholar

Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: a design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Med, 7, 2050312118822927. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Armson, G., & Whiteley, A. (2010). Employees’ and managers’ accounts of interactive workplace learning. J Workplace Learn, 22(7), 409–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621011071091 CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A., & Futing Liao, T. (2004). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589 CrossRef Google Scholar

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.Google Scholar

Sebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the strains grounded theory: classical, interpretive and constructivist. J Social Thought, 3(1).Google Scholar

Webb, S. & Webb, B. (1932) Methods of social study. Longmans, Green.Google Scholar

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/h0022100.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Davis, K., Minckas, N., Bond, V., et al. (2019). Beyond interviews and focus groups: a framework for integrating innovative qualitative methods into randomised controlled trials of complex public health interventions. Trials, 20(1), 329. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3439-8 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wiles, R., Crow, G., & Pain, H. (2011). Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review. Qualitat Res, 11, 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111413227 CrossRef Google Scholar

Geia, L.K., Hayes, B., & Usher, K. (2013). Yarning/Aboriginal storytelling: towards an understanding of an Indigenous perspective and its implications for research practice. Contemp Nurse, 46(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2013.46.1.13 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitat Res, 15(2), 219–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475 Google Scholar

Bradbury-Jones, C. (2007). Enhancing rigour in qualitative health research: exploring subjectivity through Peshkin’s I’s. J Advanc Nurs, 59(3), 290–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04306.x Google Scholar PubMed

Perry, A., et al. (2015). OT promotes closer interpersonal distance among highly empathic individuals. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 10(1), 3–9, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu017 CrossRef Google Scholar

Dheensa, S., Morgan, K., Love, B., & Cramer, H. (2022). Researching men’s violence against women as feminist women researchers: the tensions we face. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221134823 CrossRef Google Scholar

Russell-Mundine, G. (2012). Reflexivity in Indigenous research: reframing and decolonising research? J Hospitality Tourism Manage, 19(1), 85–90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/jht.2012.8 CrossRef Google Scholar

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.Google Scholar

Harman, G., & Clare, L. (2006). Illness representations and lived experience in early-stage dementia. Qual Health Res, 16(4), 484–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306286851 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lawrence, V., Samsi, K., Banerjee, S., Morgan, C., & Murray, J. (2011). Threat to valued elements of life: the experience of dementia across three ethnic groups. Gerontologist, 51(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq073 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.Google Scholar

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.Google Scholar

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Braun, V.C.V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. Sage.Google Scholar

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., et al. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Morse, J. (2020). The changing face of qualitative inquiry. Int J Qualitat Methods, 19, 1609406920909938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920909938 CrossRef Google Scholar

Malterud, K., Siersma, V.D., & Guassora, A.D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res, 26(13), 1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.Google Scholar

Crosley, J. (2021). What is thematic analysis? Simple definition + examples. Grad Coach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-thematic-analysis/Google Scholar

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2020). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counsell Psychother Res, 21. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360 Google Scholar

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitat Psychol, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196 CrossRef Google Scholar

Nichols, T.R., Biederman, D.J., & Gringle, M.R. (2014). Using research poetics “responsibly”: applications for health promotion research. Int Quart Community Health Educ, 35(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.2190/IQ.35.1.b CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., et al. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S.A., et al. (2021). A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 374, n2061. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Raine, R., Fitzpatrick, R., & de Pury, J. (2016). Challenges, solutions and future directions in evaluative research. J Health Services Res & Policy, 21(4), 215–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819616664495 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Yardley, L., Ainsworth, B., Arden-Close, E., & Muller, I. (2015). The person-based approach to enhancing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. PilotFeasibility Stud, 1(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-015-0033-z Google Scholar PubMed

Lawrence, V., Kimona, K., Howard, R.J., et al. (2019). Optimising the acceptability and feasibility of acceptance and commitment therapy for treatment-resistant generalised anxiety disorder in older adults. Age Ageing, 48(5), 741–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz082 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Phillips, M., İnce, B., Webb, H., et al. (2023). Autopsy of a failed trial: A qualitative investigation of clinician’s views on and experiences of the implementation of the DAISIES trial in UK-based intensive eating disorder services. Eur Eat Disord Rev, 31(4), 489–504. doi: 10.1002/erv.2975CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, V., Fossey, J., Ballard, C., Ferreira, N., & Murray, J. (2016). Helping staff to implement psychosocial interventions in care homes: augmenting existing practices and meeting needs for support. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 31(3), 284–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4322 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Institute for Government. www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/ahrc-how-engage-policy-makers.pdf Google Scholar

University of Oxford Ethics Governance (2021). Informed consent: information and guidance for researchers. https://researchsupport.admin.ox.ac.uk/governance/ethics/resources/consent.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. New Left Books.Google Scholar

Pittaway, E., Bartolomei, L., & Hugman, R. (2010). ‘Stop stealing our stories’: the ethics of research with vulnerable groups. J Human Rights Pract, 2(2), 229–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huq004 Google Scholar

Lester, J.N., & O’Reilly, M. (2015). Is evidence-based practice a threat to the progress of the qualitative community? Arguments from the bottom of the pyramid. Qualitat Inquiry, 21(7), 628–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563808 Google Scholar

Steinmetz, G. (2005). The epistemological unconsciousness of US sociology and the transition to post-Fordism: the case of historical sociology. In Remaking modernity: politics, history, and sociology, pp. 109–57. Duke University Press. Chapter DOI: doi.org/10.1515/9780822385882-005 Google Scholar

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Sage.Google Scholar

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba., E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.CrossRef Google Scholar

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.Google Scholar

Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychol Health, 15(2), 215–28.CrossRef Google Scholar

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitat Res Psychol, 18(3), 328–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Google Scholar

Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K., & Mandle, C.L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitat Health Res, 11(4), 522–37.Google Scholar PubMed

Lester, J.N., & O’Reilly, M. (2021). Introduction to special issue quality in qualitative approaches: celebrating heterogeneity. Qualitat Res Psychol, 18(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1931734 CrossRef Google Scholar

Barbour, R.S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322(7294), 1115–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Varpio, L., Ajjawi, R., Monrouxe, L. V., et al. (2017). Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ, 51(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13124 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International J Qualitat Methods, 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202 CrossRef Google Scholar

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. Int J Qualitat Methods, 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201 CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Book contents

Chapter 9 - Qualitative Research

Summary