Contents this month
Why qualitative methods are usually best for engagement work
Most of Dialogue by Design’s work is qualitative but recently
we have been using a quantitative approach with representative samples
of a population. This has helped us to clarify why we usually advocate
a qualitative approach and the particular situations in which quantitative
methods are better.
The established arguments are that:
- Quantitative methods are objective and make the results
of engagement with a representative sample easy to extrapolate to
the general population. They usually use closed yes/no or multiple-choice
type questions where the responses for the whole sample can be expressed
as percentages.
- Qualitative analysis on the other hand, depends more on
the skill of the facilitator or analyst and although counts of responses
of one type or another can be produced this is an intrinsically
subjective process and it is hard to generalise the results to an
entire population. This approach is also more labour-intensive and
therefore usually more expensive than quantitative analysis.
Despite these drawbacks, qualitative methods have some key advantages
over quantitative analysis:
- they generate rich, detailed responses that communicate
participants’ real perspectives and concerns;
- they allows participants the freedom to say exactly what
they think and avoid boxing them into saying something a little
different from what they really want to say;
- and - most important of all - qualitative methods
can provide answers to the question “why”.
The last point is crucial. Closed questions can obscure or disguise
underlying assumptions that only become clear when participants
complain that they are being coerced into saying things that they
do not intend. This is a particular problem when the facts surrounding
an issue are not widely accepted, for example the pros and cons
of incineration technology or the safety of the MMR vaccination.
Secondly, quantitative methods often raise the expectation that
the results will be interpreted as a binding vote and participants
are regularly disappointed when their views do not determine the
eventual decision.
Quantitative methods do have their place, for example, when the
results from a sample must be representative of a population as
a whole or when budget is limited, and we use them whenever they
offer the best solution. But in most cases involving consultation
or public engagement, qualitative methods provide a much better
foundation for informed decision-making.
