Can semi-quantitative words (such as often, usually, and rarely) be used to describe vital patterns discovered in a qualitative study?
I often recommend this when authors are confronted by reviewers who insist on counts or percentages. In many case, those reviewers will respond positively to the argument that the samples involved in qualitative interviewing are too small to support precise numbers.
As other authors have pointed out, when using imprecise terms (fuzzy quantities), one must be precise. That can be difficult, but if one shows what one means (versus just telling), then it is probably ok. Two other issues entirely, but connected, are some believe strict percentages/numbers define qualitative research (with rules which are completely arbitrary and often indefensible), and often there are connections beyond strict quantification (e.g., familial and radial relationships; quantification often leads to a false ordering and oversimplification of chaotic findings).
A quantitative description must include numbers, such as "five meals out of seven included meat." If you haven't numerically documented how many meals include meat, but observationally, meat is included in most meals, "usually," is appropriate. If you don't have numbers, "Often, usually, rarely" are appropriate descriptors.
"Quantitative description means a numerically based description pertaining to attributes and characteristics." (from a Google search)
"Most", "several", "few" and other quantitative approximations are often (!) used in qualitative papers. They give an idea of the prevalence of a phenomenon within a sample, although that sample is usually not representative of the population: a strict count could not hold much epistemic value anyways. In some cases authors have defined what the different quantity terms they use mean, for instance:
Table 2Approximation of size of the research sample who held particular views
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl0002&pii=S2666-6065%2821%2900104-8
From:
Moxham R, Moylan P, Duniec L, Fisher T, Furestad E, Manolas P, Scott N, Oam DK, Finlay S. Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, intentions and behaviours of Australian Indigenous women from NSW in response to the National Cervical Screening Program changes: a qualitative study. The Lancet Regional Health-Western Pacific. 2021 Aug 1;13:100195.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00104-8/
Raghad,
arguably, such semi-quantitative words as you mention, are the essence of qualitative study.
Seems to me---paradoxically---that when numbers are involved in a study, semi-quantitative words can give an audience a better conception of those numbers relative to an overall population from which a sample was drawn.
Thus, they might get a clearer 'handle' on the reported study results.
- Badges
- Science topic