Dear Jacqueline

I feel yes. Infact, any analysis is simply supports the visual and realised observations. If you feel that you can draw casual conclusion, you should proceed with proper justification to the enquiry.

Regards

Rajiv

I think it is possible. But you should do some deep interviews (or other qualitative methods) to collect your data and in these interviews, you need "Why" questions to find causes. Some softwares, such as "NVivo", can help you manage data and extract your model.

For me, the answer is no. Causal outcomes are more designed for quantitative approaches - and more experimental at that. Rather than cause - it might be best to talk about potential 'generalisation' with qualitative findings. While it is not the intention to genarilse findings against wider populations (such as with quantitative) approaches - the 'context' of the finding potentially can 

You can find causes, and you can generalize from qualitative research. In order to do so, however, you must understand why "quantitative experimentatl research" is the preferred way to do so. It works on the principle of the general elimination method (See Scriven, in What Counts As Credible Evidence by Donaldson, Christie, and Mark) - well conducted experimental research simply is th emost efficient way to eliminate most threats to the validity of causal inference. Thus, if you can similarly eliminate most threats to the validity of your inference from your qualitative data, then you can in fact make a generalizable causal inference. The generalizability, by the way, comes from eliminating the threat that your results are a direct function of the characteristics of your subjects - if you can demonstrate that it is not, then you have generalizable inferences.

I recommend you have a look at Henry E. Brady and David Collier's Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards  and Thad Dunning's Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach (2012, Cambridge University Press), for discussion on what is possible when you take a 'qualitative' approoach to causation

Also, there is some really good information in "Principles of Methodology: Research Design in Social Science" by Perri 6 and Christine Bellamy.

The qualitative research is documented in ways that others could come to the same conclusions as the researcher.  It shuns discreet stages, making sense of the information begins as the first data are collected. It involves loop-like patterns of revisiting the data over and over to address additional questions, uncover new connections in the data, and draw out more complex formulations as understanding of the data deepens.  It  involves being very selective in the topics one chooses to address using the data (there always are multiple possibilities)

I think you can develop a hypothesis based on qualitative findings and test your hypotesis but thinking about the philosophy behind qualitative studies, you would better to think of contributers rather than causes. 

In quantitative research, independent variables and dependent variables are rreviwed by literature that is based on framework or model. Model explains the independent and dependent relationships. This will make to analyse and state hypotheses clearly. Smiliarly, qualitative researchers can make review ofliterature to find "what causes which?". Then, associations, hypotheses can be outlined. It is better to cite previous researchers. For instance, Author A (2013) used to draw association in this way. Based on his method, i also adopt the same. Some thing like this, researcher should prove how others dealt the subject.

Causal inferences can be drawn from quantitative research, whereas theory building, typologies and classifications can generally be the outcome of qualitative research. Often qualitative research is based on the idea that we seek to understand lived experience through narration and description, and explore phenomena. It may be the first step before conducting quantitative quasi-causal or causal research. For example, scientists understood qualitativey the components that constitute matter before undertaking quantitative studies that determine the percentages and causal processes involved in the behaviour of such matter under different conditions.

Definitively yes if we adopt a realist approch to causal explanation. For a justification for this point of view you can read this article. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249629625_Using_Qualitative_Methods_for_Causal_Explanation

If you think that all research ("quantitative" or "qualitative") embodies the same underlying logic of inference, you can also read Designing Social Inquiry of Keohane, King et Verba (1994)

Article Using Qualitative Methods for Causal Explanation