Surveys are done in two ways. In one way, the questions are open ended - describe an experience you had where you felt great, for example.  That response should be a few paragraphs long which does not lend itself to statistical analysis.  This is within the range of a qualitative study.  Most qualitative researchers prefer face to face because they can probe what the person for more detail or reaction.

Other surveys are done using a framework which is developed from a theory or the research literature.  Those surveys have yes or no answers or use a Likert scale of some type.  Those are quantitative, descriptive studies not qualitative surveys and lend themselves to statistical analysis.

Some researchers only do qualitative researchers and others only quantitative studies.  Some do both.  My experience teaching graduate students research and working with IRBs,  it is difficult for quantitative minded individuals to truly grasp qualitative research.  They want to put numbers on everything. 

Qualitative research is more lined up with a human interest story.   I had a graduate student interview women and ask them what it was like to have a baby.  The study was about that human experience.  Quantitative people want to put numbers on it saying 3 people said this, 4 said that.  That's not the qualitative perspective.  It is about identifying the components only of that experience and the human experience, the joy of holding that baby.

Hope that helps.

It is not the same indeed. In my area usually qualitative methods, like in-depth enterviews with content analysis are done before surveys to better unterstand the connections between theory and the empirical world (subject perceptions). After the application of the survey, the descriptive data is analysed to profile the sample.

When you count numbers, so what qualitative research? Normally, we do not prefer count in qualitative studies...

There is an older terminology that called nominal variables "qualitative data," but that is now quite out of date. Instead, as other people have suggested here, the current meaning of qualitative research is non-numerical.

Certainly it is not the same, then the reason why it is not the same @ qualitative research involves more of a descriptive in nature ,say for instance personal experince of the clinician to the use of certain medications, patient experience and things like that.However, the quantitaive as the name implies everything based on the numbers/attributed to a numerical values and quantfiying the data.

Did you enjoy the time with your loved ones? The answer to this comes under the definition of the qualitative data. Hope this helps your understanding. 

Emilia, I just need clarification, from more ideas and opinions. It is because, here in RG many different opinions arise, which we need to process in order to come up with our own decisive concept. Thank you very much for the participation. Eddie

Of course, Qualitative research is different from Quantitative. In Quant. mostly researcher depends on statistics for analyses; while using words and themes identification is a fundamental task in qualitative research

Dear Eddie,

I  would take issue with some of the above adjectives used to describe qualitative research as, description, human interest story, or feelings. Qualitative research from my perspective is an avenue into ideologies, unconsciousness, system designs, oppressive institutions and there effects on the human condition.

Critical qualitative research has brought to light and exposed the deeply oppressive racial structural system here in the U.S. Critical feminism has exposed the structural advantage of patriarchy and its effects on women. Qualitative research has pointed the light on heterosexism, inter and intra cultural oppression, educational inequities, and finally the critique of capitalism which has proved to be quite accurate. 

To answer the question directly I would have to say no, but even in a deeply quantitative probe into X the language used is of course human so even the robotic nature of quantitative research has after all some human qualitative touch. The question of interpretation always has a human component and for that I am glad to say there is no such "thing" as "purely quantitative research".

The hermeneutics of science will and will forever have a qualitative researcher at the heart of all its claimed "objective" and "perfect methodology" in the reporting of the findings. This is after all is the heart and sole of any researcher and for people to deny this absolute truth is living in the long and winding bed of propaganda.

Douglas

we believe that a qualitative inestigacion statistical programs used as atlas, nudis, EduInfo among others, analysis and purification of quantitative data are made, I believe that serious inquiry if a researcher should apender to handle the analysis of qualitative data and quantitative data instead de-quantitative qualitative research.

Qualitative research can utilize descriptive statistical models to explain data. For example, in an open ended survey, it may be possible to track responses thematically and to find out what size of the population reflected certain themes in their free responses to an open survey. However, to a large extent, qualitative data, because it tends to be more ordinal than categorical, can more meaningfully be treated descriptively and not inferentially.

I often ask the same question, and hold the view that using descriptive to quantify interview transcriptions coded the same misses the essence of qualitative data analysis. One seeks saturation, and this can emerge from one rich transcription. At times examiners put pressure on candidates to use statistics where it may not be needed.

What of multiple studies where you send out questionnaires to build up a descriptive picture followed by individual interviews?