Yours is a question with a long answer. I'm just going to answer based on my experiences as a researcher and a teacher of research. One of the strengths of qualitative research is to identify the key elements, components of a phenomenon, usually new. Maybe 15 years ago one of my students asked women what it was like to have a baby. At that time, that question had NOT been addressed. Unbelievable.

Triangulating methods which is recommended is also helpful. I interviewed, observed, and read the charting of 30 critical care nurses to determine the knowledge based they used to successfully take care of critically ill patients to develop a targeted curriculum. What they described mostly were the patients who were younger and experienced acute incidences, like pulling out chest tubes. However, the patients I observed and chart audits revealed an older average age with less emergency situations. The results were exceptionally useful.

Focus groups do not have a good reputation in research - too much influence on each other. Unstructured questions are better than semi-structured. Semi- structured controls some of the narrative.

One of the issues researchers face is being open to the data subjects will give you without over controlling the outcome. Advisors also have that issue. If you want to truly know about a phenomenon, let the subjects tell you by asking open ended questions.

Another student I had studied what it was like to be a black student in a predominately white program of study. She had to be very careful not to let her own experience guide her questions but rather let her subjects tell their stories. From my experience and those of many students, qualitative research is amazing and so enjoyable. Good luck to you and your project.

First, in focus groups we expect people to interact in ways that influence each other because that is how life operates. Different groups will show this in different ways, so when taken together they can provide a useful picture of the overall responses to the topic. This is why literally thousands of studies are done every year using focus groups.

The biggest weakness for focus groups is the practical problems involving recruitment. In particular, it can be hard to get the people you need together in the same place at the same time.

As for individual interviews, they are the most common form of data in qualitative research, and that is a considerable advantage. One disadvantage is the potential for dealing with a large volume of data. You may need 20 for more interviews, which will take time to collect and potentially even more time to analyze.

Finally, ethnographic observation has a lot of advantages in terms of getting close to your subject matter. It does, however, have substantial disadvantages, starting with getting access to an appropriate field site. Beyond that, it can very time consuming and difficult to analyze. For better or worse, ethnographic research has become increasingly rare outside of anthropology.

I know in healthcare, qualitative research of all types have been and from my understanding still can be done. I hope ethnographic research in not restricted to anthropology. I hear David's complaints people have about the volume of data in qualitative studies. That reminded me of something I observed in teaching research. There seems to be different thinking approaches with those who do qualitative versus quantitative research and those who can do both. In graduate school students are taught to pick a method that best answers their research questions. However, another consideration is the ability to do either type of research. I know some graduate students who could not get their head around the open ended approach to doing qualitative research. Others were just not good at statistics. Someone who likes qualitative research would love seeing the volumes of paper and could see the patterns within them. My hunch, and it's only a hunch, are that those who liked and were good at algebra, tend to be able recognize those patterns. Thanks for asking your question. I always appreciate David Morgan's responses, too!

Thank you both, Madelaine Lawrence and David L Morgan ! Your responses will give me plenty to think about as I'm designing that stage of my project.

Think in terms of breadth -- how widespread is it? and depth -- what is this like? I want to know how frequently cancers occur in different locations (very important social epidemiology information). I count. I want to know about the experience of dealing with cancer personally, for family,for health professionals, etc. I ask. The cancer patient does not care much about cancer clusters in Houston. So, interviews to get at experiences. I want to know how people coordinate their activity to perform a social act. I watch video to identify sequences of social action. What do people on trains talk about? I sit on trains and listen. They are all good (but maybe not focus groups as someone has already mentioned).