Inductive Rather than Deductive<\/h2>\n
If we start with the premise that qualitative methods work best but\u00a0can\u2019t be used, we are immediately released from the obligation to manipulate variables, compare them against a control, and run multiple scenarios in order to deduce a replicable solution matrix.<\/p>\n
The emphasis on observation with an expectation to just describe and understand facilitates research into opinions, feelings and experiences (variables that would confound a traditional quantitative study). In addition, the lack of a manipulated study environment allows the retention of the dynamic nature of the interview<\/a> or group discussion process. Researchers are not tied to pre-approved survey questions, and have the freedom to probe beyond initial responses with follow-up questions in real-time<\/a>. The direct presence of the researcher, either as a hidden observer or focus group leader, allows non-verbal communication to be observed also.<\/p>\n Qualitative research methods come with two major limitations. First, since the traditional data collection methodology is through direct observation or interviews, there is no dataset to “number crunch,” which makes this type of research<\/a> very labor intensive.<\/p>\n Second, since the data collection is based on individual researcher observation or interviews of specific groups in real time, the potential to generalize broader themes from qualitative data is more limited than quantitative data<\/a>. As such, we would categorize the data as descriptive rather than prescriptive.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nQualitative Theories<\/h2>\n
\n
Accepted Limitations<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"