I agree with Peyman that Qualitative Descriptive Research and Narrative are basically two different forms of qualitative research. Within any given field, preferences for different kinds of research come and go, and I cannot speak to trends within the business studies literature.

As several of the citation here indicate (including your own citation to Sandelowski), Qualitative Descriptive Research has remained common within nursing research. A more recent development of those techniques within nursing is Sally Thorne's book, "Interpretive Description" (for which Sandeloswski wrote a foreword).

There is a good example of qualitative descriptive study, which done by Zheng RS and colleagues at  Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Jan;52(1):288-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.09.009 " Chinese oncology nurses' experience on caring for dying patients who are on their final days: A qualitative study."

Dear Abdul zahid Khan,

Salam

I refer you to book " Qualitative Research in Practice" which has written by Sharan B.Merriam and Associates(2002 and it's new editions).

According to Merriam (2002) a basic interpretive and descriptive qualitative study exemplifies all the characteristics of qualitative research, that is the researcher is interested in understanding how participants make meaning of a situation or phenomenon, this meaning is mediate through the researcher as instrument, the strategy is inductive, and the outcome is descriptive.....

while in the Narrative Analysis, is currently a popular form of qualitative research. The key of this qualitative research is the use of stories as data, and more specifically, first person accounts of experience told in story form. Other terms for this type of research include biography, autobiography, life history, oral history, auto-ethnography, and life narrative."

All the best

Peyman    

Descriptive research is not necessarily qualitative, as many epidemiological studies are descriptive, i.e. a population is only "described" in terms of some characteristics related to health, wellness/welfare, and/or disease status. There are no questions or investigating of correlations or causal factors-- simply descriptions of the people under investigations..

thanks for the answers... love to see more

Mary-Helen,

That is correct that not all descriptive research is not qualitative - take descriptive quantitate surveys for instance. 'Description' in both quant and qual approaches does refer to the same thing. With quantitative description - then the numerical nature of the the collected data is described. With qualitative description it is the nature of the collected 'narrative' (that Abdul initially refers to) that is described. One way of getting around this is to call this type of qualitative inquiry 'exploratory' - although this term could also be applied to other research approaches. One other term that avoids this 'cross-over' confusion (but is not used that often) is qualitative 'free-form'. 

I co-write a successful Australasian nursing and midwifery nursing text (now in its 5th edition). Below is pasted an extract from the 'common qualitative approaches' chapter which describes the nature and the phenomenon of the fast-emerging 'dominance of this approach - often at the 'expense' of more contemporary qualitative approaches:

THE MAIN APPROACHES TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Descriptive exploratory

Since the last edition of this text there has been quite a dramatic turnaround in terms of what is now the most common form of qualitative enquiry in nursing and midwifery studies. It was mentioned in the 2007 chapter (almost as a footnote) that: Annells (2007) argues that this form of ‘descriptive exploratory’ methodology is fast emerging in nursing and midwifery research and could even take over as the most common qualitative approach in the future'. It was a bold claim at the time, but that prediction has come about in a relatively short period of time. Whereas phenomenology, grounded theory and ethnographical approaches (in that rank order) were the most common approaches in the mid part of the last decade, they have now been notably overtaken by descriptive exploratory approaches. There are two sides to the debate about the rapid development of the descriptive exploratory approach. For those who see it as a threat, they view researchers as possibly either opting for the simplest option, or that they simply do not understand other more complex traditional approaches to qualitative research. On the other hand, some researchers view the situation as liberating. Therefore, those who support descriptive exploratory approaches feel that they do not have to be ‘shackled’ by the conventions of traditional approaches, allowing a greater degree of freedom in expressing and reporting their findings. Sometimes, however, authors appear to compensate against the claim that descriptive exploratory approaches are a simpler and more manageable form of qualitative enquiry by adding more complex philosophical/ theoretical frameworks to their studies. For instance, Dempsey (2008) adopts Parse’s humanbecoming philosophical position as the theoretical perspective for her qualitative descriptive exploratory study exploring confinement with 13 volunteer adult men, incarcerated in the same mental health unit of a US medium-security prison. Descriptive exploratory methodology is not so much a specific approach, but more a ‘general’ approach that usually adopts common aspects of all qualitative approaches. In effect, descriptive exploratory researchers collect rich narrative data from small sample populations (see Chapter 7) and analyse that data using broad ‘free-form’ thematic/content analysis methods (see Chapter 8). Compared to the following sections, particularly with phenomenology for instance, there is not a great deal that can be discussed with regard to descriptive exploratory approaches. They adopt ‘generic’ (general) qualitative principles and, therefore, are not usually governed by complex theoretical or philosophical positions that require more careful detailing and exploration. It appears that authors might be trying to convince research consumers that the approach is more complicated than it actually is. For instance, Drey et al. (2012, in press) describe their descriptive exploratory study on patients’ adherence to antiparkinsonian medication as an ‘in-depth’ qualitative study. As referred to earlier, some authors do not describe their qualitative approaches as descriptive exploratory. Perhaps a reason for this is that most research is, by nature, descriptive (both qualitative and quantitative) and most qualitative approaches are of an exploratory nature. For instance, McKenna et al. (2011 p 682) conducted 11 focus groups with 46 key academic midwives across Australia on the subject of clinical simulation, and simply stated ‘A qualitative design was employed ...’. Their title qualifies the approach as a ‘A qualitative examination of perceptions of leaders’. Similarly, Sweet and Glover (2012, in press), in their exploration of the Flinders University (Adelaide) midwifery continuity-of-care program, simply stated ‘a qualitative study was conducted’. Crowe et al. (2010) also make the same claim about their New Zealand-based study on the impact of lower back pain, with the title ‘Self-management and chronic low back pain: a qualitative study’. Another variation on descriptive exploratory approaches lies in the use of terms such as an ‘interpretative approach’. For instance, Shih and Honey (2011), in their qualitative study on the impact of dialysis on rural-based Māori and their families, use this term. Another variation occurs in Wilkes et al.’s (2011) Australian study of the experiences and expectations of adolescent young expectant fathers where the researchers describe their study as a ‘narrative inquiry’.

RESEARCH IN BRIEF Huntington et al. (2011) explored nurses’ perceptions of the reality of practice based on data from the Nurses and Midwives e-cohort Study. It examined the workforce characteristics, such as work–life balance and health of nurses. They performed a qualitative analysis of data from a cohort of Australian, New Zealand and UK-based nurses. Of the 7604 participants, 1909 provided qualitative comments related to nursing practice; thematic analysis resulted in four ordered themes (see Chapter 8): ‘embodied care’ which discussed the impact of work on the nurse’s physical and emotional health; ‘quantity/quality care’ which addressed increasing pressures of work and ability to provide quality care; ‘organisational care’ raising the seeming lack of support from management; and ‘(un)collegial/self care’ where bullying and professional relationships were uncovered.

RESEARCH IN BRIEF Qualitative descriptive research can be used in culturally based studies. Ryan and Wilson (2010) describe their New Zealand study that utilised a Kaupapa Ma ̄ori methodology to investigate child-to-mother violence. They found that Ma ̄ori mothers, where abused by their child, chose to protect their child. They do report, however, that the mothers reached a point after which they undertook a new journey of telling their story to others, reconnecting with indigenous roots and engaging in ‘healing activities’. The study also highlighted the lack of support that these mothers were offered by health professionals. 

I agree with Peyman that Qualitative Descriptive Research and Narrative are basically two different forms of qualitative research. Within any given field, preferences for different kinds of research come and go, and I cannot speak to trends within the business studies literature.

As several of the citation here indicate (including your own citation to Sandelowski), Qualitative Descriptive Research has remained common within nursing research. A more recent development of those techniques within nursing is Sally Thorne's book, "Interpretive Description" (for which Sandeloswski wrote a foreword).

Thanks everybody. All your answers were helpful for me. I would love to see more !

Hello Abdul, thanks for posing your question. Qualitative research is still running behind the age-old QUAN, as we are so steeped in our thinking; and, the descriptive design has been seen as punitive, especially for doctoral research. Nonetheless, this design serves its purpose, so I've attached an article I think you might find useful. Please let me know if you do.

Blessings,

Hazel Trauffer, PhD.

To my mind, qualitative research is about both listening and speaking, about description and conceptualization. Description is in no way a minor form of research. There are two main ways to come from description to concepts, increasing the "thickness" of description as in in Geertz or relaying on the constant comparative method as in grounded theory research. Finding the suitable mix of description and conceptualization also depends on the purpose of the research project.  

I posed a similar question regarding the use of qualitative descriptive in business research.  Thanks to Dean for clarifying my question. I received several good responses.  In my doctoral study, I referenced Sandelowski (2000, 2010) for a definition of qualitative descriptive, which was referred to as a basic or fundamental approach (p. 335).  Chenail (2011) identified an eclectic approach that mixes elements from several designs.  Additionally, Caelli, Ray, and Mill (2003) looked to Merriam (1998) to identify basic qualitative description as a generic qualitative approach.  Further, Kahlke (2014) identified benefits to using generic approaches and provided suggestions on improving the rigor when using these approaches.  Content data analysis is often associated with qualitative descriptive studies; Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas (2013) compared content analysis and thematic analysis to clarify the boundaries and to reduce inconsistency in use and enhance coherence in qualitative descriptive studies.

Dean's response noted the common use of qualitative descriptive in nursing. Also, I found it is used commonly in education and religious studies.  I searched through many databases but found only a few studies using it in business.  I would appreciate you sharing other articles on the use of qualitative descriptive as a business research approach.

Tongila

Hello.  I do not think that "descriptive qualitative research" is a design or special method.  Every qualitative study has some feature of description, which in fact is what makes it different from quantitative in its essence.

Because the question sort  of threw me, I went back and searched every single text I own and many articles and although they all discussed descriptive or description, not a single one names it a qualitative design. 

I also read the article posted above and in sum, it makes research an atheoretical, unpurposeful endeavor.

However, it helped me understand what's going on with the students (nursing and social work) whom I have been teaching and working with recently.  In their efforts to comply with curriculum requirements to complete a research proposal as a major assignment, they did not and could not understand the WHY are you doing this project (other then what can only be described as interest or curiosity) and more important, what theory will you apply/are you applying?

My question is, Whatever happened to theory in research?

I'm not sure whether we ever explicitly gave the key citation to Sandelowski (2000): Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334-340. As I understand her basic argument, we shouldn't dismiss work that is largely descriptive, even though we often choose to put an emphasis on interpretation.

That was followed by Sandelowski & Barroso (2003) Classifying the Findings in Qualitative Studies. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, Vol. 13 No. 7, 905-923. Here, qualitative descriptive research anchors one end of a continuum.

It was posted by Hazel Trouffer-- a link to the full article.

For the sake of completeness Sandelowski also has a third article on the topic, but I personally am not sure how much that one adds:

What’s in a Name? Qualitative Description Revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 2010, 33, 77–84

As said before in other issues/questions, articles are reworked and submitted multiple times with different names to different journals and thus published under different names, same topic, same article.

I am in total disagreement with Sandelowki's reworking of qualitative research, as there is no such design as "qualitative description," especially as described in her writings that dismiss theory and purpose, as well as design, in research. Method (s), on the other  hand is/are used (can be used) in any design whereby they are appropriate.

I have read articles using this "method,"  in nursing journals, where this seems to be very popular, albeit unscientific, and yes, that is all that is done-- describe some situation, without rhyme or reason, and a final (after-) thought as to "... this research can be used...." said  in one single sentence.  This is NOT how research, legitimate research  is conducted.

I myself don't think of Qualitative Description as a method; instead, I think of it as a goal. Sandelowski herself is ambiguous on this account, sometimes referring to Qualitative Description as a "methodological approach" -- whatever that means. But at least she has a whole section in her 2010 article titled "Qualitative Description Does Not Legitimate the Failure to Analyze and Interpret Data."

To my way of thinking, a likely method to produce a Qualitative Description would be a content analysis that emphasized manifest content. As Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) emphasize, this is a very limited goal with regard to most of the things that qualitative researchers want to accomplish. Still, I would defend the possibility of doing useful descriptive work, such as is in highly exploratory situations, where a decent description of a phenomenon might indeed be a contribution to knowledge.

Outside of nursing research, another prominent advocate for qualitative descriptive research would be Harry Wolcott, who is an anthropologist.

Thanks everybody. 

I do not think so. Qualitative approach is even more enriched with multi-design. Thus, it becomes one of the additional steps to confirm information. It may be that with different strategies different information is obtained, but it can also be the same. At least it has become a way to strengthen the validity and reliability of your research. Thank you