Evaluation of Qualitative Research Methods (DP IB Psychology: HL): Revision Note

Syllabus Edition

First teaching 2017

Last exams 2026

Claire Neeson

Written by: Claire Neeson

Reviewed by: Raj Bonsor

Updated on

Evaluation of naturalistic observations

Strengths

  • Participants are observed going about their daily activities, unaware of being observed

    • This means that their behaviour is natural and unforced

    • Thus this technique is high in ecological validity

  • As participants are unaware that they are being observed they are unlikely to succumb to the 'Hawthorne effect'

Limitations

  • As participants are unaware that they are being observed this raises ethical concerns

    • Participants cannot give informed consent or the right to withdraw and it may not be possible to debrief them

    • This means that naturalistic observations may lack ethical validity

  • Naturalistic observations cannot be replicated due to the nature of the method

    • This makes it difficult to apply scientific rigour to them as no variables are controlled

    • This means that the method may be overly subjective

Evaluation of interviews

Structured interviews

Strengths

  • The use of standardised questions means that the interview can be replicated and used by different researchers

    • This minimises the researcher effect as all researchers have to 'stick to the script' as it were rather than pursuing responses they find interesting

  • Structured interviews may generate more quantitative data than unstructured interviews

    • This means that the results can be statistically analysed

    • This in turn increases the reliability of the findings

Limitations

  • A predetermined set of questions may be restrictive

  • The participant may say something which should be explored further but the format of the structured interview does not allow this

  • This limits the usefulness of the method

Semi-structured interviews

Strengths

  • The use of some standardised questions means that the interview can be replicated but the built-in flexibility means that semi-structured interviews offer both an interview plan and some freedom to explore topics

  • This type of interview may be useful if the participant is initially reluctant to disclose much information or engage with the researcher

    • The predetermined questions can offer the researcher a way to build rapport with the participant

Limitations

  • Semi-structured interviews may fall in the middle ground between structured and unstructured which means that they may not go far enough into either territory e.g.

    • There may be too many or not enough predetermined questions

    • There may be too much or too little time devoted to the unstructured aspect of the interview

      • Both of these outcomes would result in unsatisfactory data

  • The interviewer must be skilled in conducting this type of interview as it involves a fine balance between structured and unstructured approaches

    • If the interviewer is not skilled enough then the results may not be of much use or interest to the topic being investigated

Unstructured/narrative interviews

Strengths

  • Unstructured interviews are high in ecological validity

    • Participants have complete freedom to respond in any way they choose

    • The interview is tailored towards them as an individual

    • Thoughts, feelings, fears, hopes and emotions can all be openly expressed by the participant with no manipulation from the researcher

  • The researcher has the flexibility to pursue any interesting topics that emerge during the interview

    • The topic can be discussed from several different perspectives

    • The original topic can even be abandoned if the participant takes the interview into new and interesting territory

    • This flexibility is a strength as it may open up new insight into what is being researched

Limitations

  • The very free-flowing and unpredictable nature of unstructured interviews means that the entire process may become derailed

  • The participant may wish to go into depth and detail on topics which are irrelevant to the research

  • The participant may change tack frequently, mixing up timelines, confusing details, getting 'lost' in their narrative

    • This limits the credibility of unstructured interviews

Focus group interviews

Strengths

  • This type of interview may be less stressful for participants as there is no pressure on them to speak in a group setting 

    • This means that once they do contribute to the procedure they are relaxed and able to express themselves freely

  • The researcher can interact freely with the participants, asking them to clarify, explain, give examples etc. which would increase the validity of the findings

Limitations

  • Some participants may dominate the group, causing others to feel uncomfortable, reserved or unable to participate

    • This would result in a biased exploration of the topic as not everyone's’ views would have been heard

  • The researcher may unintentionally steer the course of the interview to suit their agenda 

    • This is known as the researcher effect which lowers the validity of the findings

Evaluation of case studies

Strengths

  • Case studies provide rich, in-depth data which is high in explanatory power 

    • The researcher can gain insight into the unique experience of the participant

    • This is a holistic, idiographic approach, where the whole individual is considered

    • Thus, case studies are high in ecological validity

  • Conducting a case study of an individual with an unusual, rare disorder or condition allows researchers to form conclusions as to how the majority of the population functions e.g.

    • The study of HM showed the effect on memory of brain damage due to hippocampal surgery

Limitations

  • The findings from case studies only represent the person (or small group) who is the focus of the study

    • This means that they cannot be generalised to wider populations

  • Case studies may suffer due to the relationship between the researcher and the participant

    • The researcher may begin to feel too close to the person they are studying which could result in them losing their objectivity in their reporting of the results

      • This loss of impartiality would impair the validity of the findings

Unlock more, it's free!

Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Claire Neeson

Author: Claire Neeson

Expertise: Psychology Content Creator

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.

Raj Bonsor

Reviewer: Raj Bonsor

Expertise: Curriculum Expert

Raj joined Save My Exams in 2024 as a Senior Curriculum Expert for Psychology & Sociology. Prior to this, she spent 15 years in the classroom, teaching hundreds of GCSE and A Level students. She has experience as Subject Leader for Psychology and Sociology, and her favourite topics to teach are research methods (especially inferential statistics!) and attachment. She has also successfully taught a number of Level 3 subjects, including criminology, health & social care, and citizenship.