Sample Research Projects

Music and Activities

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4T05wQUpTSXdqN28/view?usp=sharing

Music and Social Media

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4TFJzYXFaMEVsekE/view?usp=sharing

Stress and Television Habits

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4aS16ZUZJUnRsd1U/view?usp=sharing

Four Criteria Used to Evaluate Qualitative Research

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Dv4MQMdbN4c2pvakk0dmkwYk0/view?usp=sharing

Nature of Qualitative Research (Qualitative vs. Quantitative)

The Nature of Qualitative Research

All research, whether quantitative or qualitative, must involve an explicit, disciplined, systematic approach to finding things out, using the method most appropriate to the question being asked. Consideration should be given to these common goals, although the differences between qualitative and quantitative research have often been exaggerated in the past.  The table below summarizes some of the ways in which qualitative and quantitative research do differ:

Table 1

Qualitative research	Quantitative research
tends to focus on how people or groups of people can have (somewhat) different ways of looking at reality (usually social or psychological reality)	tends to focus on ways of describing and understanding reality by the discovery of general “laws”
takes account of complexity by incorporating the  real-world context – can take different perspectives on board	takes account of complexity by precise definition of the focus of interest and techniques that mean that external “noise” can be discounted
studies behaviour in natural settings or uses people’s accounts as data; usually no manipulation of variables	involves manipulation of some variables (independent variables) while other variables (which would be considered to be extraneous and confounding variables) are held constant
focuses on reports of experience or on data which cannot be adequately expressed numerically	uses statistical techniques that allow us to talk about how likely it is that something is “true” for a given population in an objective or measurable sense
focuses on description and interpretation and might lead to development of new concepts or theory, or to an evaluation of an organisational process	focuses on cause & effect - e.g. uses experiment to test (try to disprove) an hypothesis
employs a flexible, emergent but systematic research process	requires the research process to be defined in advance

Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena.  That is to say, it aims to help us to understand the social world in which we live and why things are the way they are.  It is concerned with the social aspects of our world and seeks to answer questions about:

·    Why people behave the way they do

·    How opinions and attitudes are formed

·    How people are affected by the events that go on around them

·    How and why cultures and practices have developed in the way they have

In a health or social care setting, qualitative research is particularly useful where the research question involves one of the situations below and people’s experiences and views are sought:

·   exploration or identification of concepts or views

·   exploration of “implementability”               

·   the real-life context

·   sensitive topics where flexibility is needed to avoid causing distress

In the past the distinguishing features of qualitative and quantitative research have been used as criticisms by proponents of the “other” methodology. For example, one common criticism leveled at qualitative research has been that the results of a study may not be generalizable to a larger population because the sample group was small and the participants were not chosen randomly.  However if the original research question sought insight into a specific subgroup of the population, not the general population, because the subgroup is “special” or different from the general population and that specialness is the focus of the research, the small sample may have been appropriate. This would be the case with some ethnic groups or some patient groups suffering from rare conditions, or patient or health care groups in particular circumstances. In such studies, generalizability of the findings to a wider, more diverse population is not an aim. Another example is the label of reductionism, based on the requirement of the experimental method to eliminate all but one measurable variable, which is used to imply criticism of quantitative methodology. The rigour involved in a well designed and executed experiment is a strength of quantitative research just as an alternative approach which engages with context is a strength of qualitative methodology.

Qualitative Data Collection Methods

Qualitative Data Collection Methods

In this section, methods of qualitative research data collection are outlined.  The main methods are:

1)    interviews

2)    focus groups

3)    observation

4)    collection of documented material such as letters, diaries, photographs

5)    collection of narrative

6)    open ended questions in questionnaires (other aspects of are covered in the resource pack surveys and questionnaires )

Interviews

Interviewing can, at one extreme, be structured, with questions prepared and presented to each interviewee in an identical way using a strict predetermined order.  At the other extreme, interviews can be completely unstructured, like a free-flowing conversation. Qualitative researchers usually employ “semi-structured” interviews which involve a number of open ended questions based on the topic areas that the researcher wants to cover.  The open ended nature of the questions posed defines the topic under investigation but provides opportunities for both interviewer and interviewee to discuss some topics in more detail.  If the interviewee has difficulty answering a question or provides only a brief response, the interviewer can use cues or prompts to encourage the interviewee to consider the question further.  In a semi structured interview the interviewer also has the freedom to probe the interviewee to elaborate on an original response or to follow a line of inquiry introduced by the interviewee.  An example would be:

Interviewer:   "I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether changes in government policy have changed the work of the doctor in general practice.  Has your work changed at all?" 

Interviewee:  "Absolutely!  The workload has increased for a start."

Interviewer:   "Oh, how is that?"

Preparation for semi-structured interviews includes drawing up a “topic guide” which is a list of topics the interviewer wishes to discuss. The guide is not a schedule of questions and should not restrict the interview, which needs to be conducted sensitively and flexibly allowing follow up of points of interest to either interviewer or interviewee. In addition to the topic guide, the interviewer will probably want to approach the interview with written prompts to him/herself in order to make sure that the necessary preliminary ground is covered concerning such things as the information leaflet (has the interviewee understood it and got any questions?), the consent form (has it been signed?), the voice recorder (is it switched on?). The semi-structured interview is possibly the most common qualitative research data gathering method in health and social care research as it is relatively straightforward to organize. That does not however mean that it is easy to conduct good qualitative research interviews. A good interviewer needs to be able to put an interviewee at ease, needs good listening skills and needs to be able to manage an interview situation so as to collect data which truly reflect the opinions and feelings of the interviewee concerning the chosen topic(s). A quiet, comfortable location should be chosen and the interviewer should give consideration to how s/he presents her/himself in terms of dress, manner and so on, so as to be approachable. Most commonly interviews are audio recorded. Digital voice recorders are excellent for this and easier to use and less intrusive than tape recorders. Interviews may also be video-taped if details such as non-verbal signals are needed for the analysis. In practice it may be more difficult to obtain the approval of the relevant ethics committee(s) for video-recording and it may be more difficult to get consent from interviewees.  A form of interview can be conducted by email. This will generate qualitatively different types of response from participants partly because they are able to delay responding until they have thought about what to say. Interesting research is being carried out on the special features of email communications.

As with all other research (qualitative and quantitative), audit trails are good practice. Therefore, a reflexive diary should be kept by the researcher. Part of this should take the form of field notes and it is good practice to enter observations and impressions about each interview into a notebook as soon as possible after the interview has taken place.

Focus Groups

In a way focus groups resemble interviews, but focus group transcripts can be analysed so as to explore the ways in which the participants interact with each other and influence each other’s expressed ideas, which obviously cannot happen with one-to-one interview material. In common with semi-structured interviews, focus group conveners use topic guides to help them keep the discussion relevant to the research question. Focus groups are not necessarily a cheaper and quicker means to an end than are interviews, as focus groups may be more difficult to manage and more difficult to convene simply because more people are involved. Focus groups are considered to work well with approximately 8 people, but this is not always easy to arrange – do you invite more in the expectation that one or two will not turn up? If so, how do you manage if 10 or 12 present themselves? or if not, what if only 3 or 4 turn up (as a courtesy to them you will probably have to proceed)? For issues concerning sampling and constitution of focus groups, see Section 5. Focus groups are ideally run in accessible locations where participants can feel comfortable and relaxed. The time of day and facilities offered will need to be appropriate for the particular target member: for example is a crèche needed? Is there adequate car-parking space? It is better if the discussion is not interrupted and so it is a good idea to offer refreshments and to point out toilet facilities beforehand. Serving refreshments as people arrive also serves as a good “ice-breaker” and allows participants to meet each other before the focus group starts.

An important preliminary for conducting focus groups is laying down the “ground rules”. One of these concerns confidentiality, and this needs careful planning at the proposal and ethics committee application stage. Members of a focus group may not speak openly unless they are comfortable that others present will treat their contributions as confidential. It could be laid down as a condition of the focus group that it is expected that the content of the discussion which is about to take place will only be known by those present. All participants should indicate their agreement to this. Alternatively, if this seems unrealistic, the facilitator could point out that there are ways of presenting ideas that avoid breaching confidentiality: for instance, a participant can say “I have heard on the grapevine that ‘x’ sometimes happens” rather than saying “‘x’ has happened to me”, and that participants might adopt this policy.

Acting as facilitator of a focus group, the researcher must allow all participants to express themselves and must cope with the added problem of trying to prevent more than one person speaking at a time, in order to permit identification of the speakers for the purposes of transcription and analysis. This is something else which should be requested when laying down the “ground rules”. Unless the proceedings are being videoed, it is a good idea to have an observer present. This person’s role could be to note which participant is saying what, which can be done if each person is labelled with a number or letter and the relevant label is noted alongside the first word or two of his/her contribution. Another point to make clear at the outset is the planned completion time for the discussion.

Observation

Not all qualitative data collection approaches require direct interaction with people. Observation is a technique that can be used when data cannot be collected through other means, or those collected through other means are of limited value or are difficult to validate. For example, in interviews participants may be asked about how they behave in certain situations but there is no guarantee that they actually do what they say they do. Observing them in those situations is more valid: it is possible to see how they actually behave. Observation can also produce data for verifying or nullifying information provided in face to face encounters.

In some research observation of people is not required but observation of the environment. This can provide valuable background information about the environment where a research project is being undertaken. For example, an ethnographic study of a children’s ward may need information about the layout of the ward or about how people dress. In a health needs assessment or in a locality survey observations can provide broad contextual descriptions of the key features of the area: for example, whether the area is inner city, urban or rural, the geographical location, the size of the population. It can describe the key components of the area: the main industries, type of housing. The availability of services can be identified: the number, type and location of health care facilities such as hospitals and health centers, care homes, leisure facilities, shopping centers.

Techniques for collecting data through observation:

Written descriptions. The researcher can record observations of people, a situation or an environment by making notes of what has been observed. The limitations of this are similar to those of trying to write down interview data as an interview takes place. First there is a risk that the researcher will miss out on observations because s/he is writing about the last thing s/he noticed. Secondly, the researcher may find her/his attention focusing on a particular event or feature because it appears to be particularly interesting or relevant and miss things which are equally or more important but their importance is not recognized or acknowledged at the time.

Video recording. This frees the observer from the task of making notes at the time and allows events to be reviewed repeatedly. One disadvantage of video recording is that the actors in the social world may be more conscious of the camera than they would be of a person and that this will affect their behavior. They may even try to avoid being filmed. This problem can be lessened by having the camera placed at a fixed point rather than being carried around. In either case though, only events in the line of the camera can be recorded, limiting the range of possible observations and perhaps distorting conclusions.

Artifacts. Artifacts may be objects which inform us about a phenomenon under study because of their significance to the phenomenon. Examples would be doctors’ equipment in a particular clinic or art work hung in residential care homes.

Collection of Documented Material such as Letters, Diaries, Photographs

Documentation. A wide range of written materials can produce qualitative information. These can be particularly useful in trying to understand the philosophy of an organisation as may be required in ethnography. They can include policy documents, mission statements, annual reports, minutes of meetings, codes of conduct, web sites, series of letters or emails, case notes, health promotion materials, etc. Diary entries may be used retrospectively (it is reasonable to assume that diarists will enter things which were important to them at the time of the entry) or diaries may be given to research participants who are asked to keep an account of issues or their thoughts concerning diet, medication, interactions with health care services or whatever is the subject of the research. Audio diaries may be used if the written word presents problems. Notice boards can also be a valuable source of data.

Photographs are a good way of collecting information which can be captured in a single shot or series of shots. For example, photographs of buildings, neighborhoods, dress and appearance could be analyzed in such a way as to develop theory about professional relationships over a given time period. Photographs may be produced for research purposes or existing photographs may be used for analysis. As with every method of data collection, any ethical implications of collecting documents should be considered.

Collection of Narrative

A story told by a research participant, or a conversation between two or more people can be used as data for qualitative research (see Section 3). Data collected should be entirely naturally occurring, not shaped as in a semi-structured interview or focus group. Narrative data can however be collected in the course of a form of interview. The “narrative interview” begins with a “generative narrative question” which invites the interviewee to relate his/her account of his/her life history or a part of it. This could be an account of living with a chronic illness or with a child with special needs or as a carer for an elderly relative. During the first part of the interview, the interviewee should listen actively but should not interject with further questioning. When the narrator indicates that the narrative is completed, there follows a questioning phase where the interviewer elicits further information on fragments which have been introduced. This may be followed by a balancing phase where first “how” and then “why” questions are asked in order to gain further explanation of aspects of the narrative.

Open ended questions in questionnaires 

Open ended questions, responses to which are to be analyzed qualitatively, may be included in questionnaires even though the majority of the questionnaire will generate quantitative data. The open ended questions usually require that responses, which reflect the opinions of the respondents, be written in blank spaces. This form of data may give useful guidance to a researcher planning an interview or focus group study. The outcome by itself may be a source of frustration as there is no opportunity to ask for clarification of any point made. 

Qualitative Sampling

Qualitative Sampling

In qualitative research, sampling can occur at several stages, both while collecting data and while interpreting and reporting on it.

Sampling while collecting data for qualitative research is not the same as sampling in quantitative research because researchers are not interested in being able to generalise at a statistical level – instead the key is purposive or strategic sampling. Many would therefore argue that probability-based sampling (e.g. random sampling) is inappropriate. Sampling strategies can be determined in advance and/or evolve during the research process (gradual definition of sample structure).

Sampling Strategy Determined in Advance

Researchers might determine their strategy in advance by devising a sampling frame which has to be filled (this means drawing up a chart which lists the types of characteristics they wish their sample to include, such as a range of age-groups, a range of health status groups, a range of areas in terms of affluence/deprivation; then ensuring that recruitment continues until there is at least one “tick” against each characteristic). This is sometimes known as criterion/quota sampling because the researchers identify criteria that are important to study and select cases that meet these criteria. Another strategy determined in advance would be “complete collection”: for instance a researcher who wanted to learn about what happened to middle aged men who had chronic renal failure in an area of SE Britain would try to recruit all patients who were male, aged 30-50, in all renal units in that particular area.

Gradual Definition of Sample Structure

There are many ways of gradually defining the sampling structure, some are listed below but you may come across others. It is important to remember that practical constraints are a particular issue in many qualitative research studies (because data collection is time-consuming for example): in practice you may find that many samples are “convenience samples”. The important message to take away from this section is one about how to recognise good practice in sampling when you read about qualitative research, and how to make sure your own research is of high quality - document your sampling strategy, be able to describe the characteristics of those involved in the study, demonstrate that the sampling strategy contributes to a search for disconfirming evidence (i.e. show that you are not just collecting data that you hope will support a pre-conceived idea), and give a full and honest account of what was done. This applies to choosing illustrative quotations when reporting and disseminating research, as well as to sampling participants or events.

Theoretical sampling: here, sampling is directed towards making possible generalisations about theoretical propositions and new cases are selected for their potential in extending or testing emergent understanding.

Convenience sampling: here researchers select those who are available and likely to participate, perhaps over a specific period.

Typical case sampling: researchers decide on the characteristics of “typical” individuals and select the sample to fit the characteristics of typical cases in selecting people for focus groups etc.

Critical case sampling: researchers choose cases that they believe to be especially important because of the position they hold (e.g. because of their particular place within an organisation) or because they are especially well able to articulate a view (e.g. spokesperson for a medical charity).

Maximum variation sampling: here researchers identify cases with different characteristics to maximise diversity in the sample, usually to get the widest range of views possible. This is best done using quota methods (see “strategy determined in advance”) and iteratively (e.g. refine your quotas based on the emergent analysis – you may decide you need to investigate one group in more depth). Any common themes that emerge can capture “core” experiences or views.

Intensity sampling: this is where researchers sample the same characteristics over and over. It tends to be used in interpretive phenomenological analysis.

Snowball sampling: relies on referrals, one participant recruits others. This can help researchers to capitalise on informal networks that might otherwise be difficult to access (e.g. sex workers, drug users, victims of domestic violence etc).

How do you Know When you Have an Adequate Sample?

Ideally this will occur when your quota (sampling frame) is full, and when you have reached theoretical saturation – in other words when additional cases do not modify your coding frame. It is a good idea to have some redundancy, and to be able to report on when you reached saturation and how. (Theoretical saturation occurs when new data from new cases do not contribute to the development of emerging theory even after you have tried to ensure that your new cases are those most likely to extend or challenge your ideas.)  In practice, if you are applying for funding for a study, you will need to specify how many participants you are likely to need. As a rough guide, for interview studies analysed using constant comparative approaches, theoretical saturation will probably be reached after 20-60 interviews.

Samples for Focus Group Studies

There are some additional points that might help when arranging focus group studies. The recommended size of a group is 6 – 10 people, having fewer than this could limit the potential interaction, and having more than this could make it difficult for everyone to join in the discussion. A study using focus groups to collect data should include several groups, not just one, because any individual group is subject to internal or external factors of which the investigator may be unaware. Also, on a practical level, there may be individual groups that do not go smoothly: the members may be reluctant to participate or not interact well with each other and limited insight will be gained. Enough groups should be run to provide adequate breadth and depth of information; there is a tendency for 10 to 15 groups per study but some studies may find that 4 or 5 are enough. There is no upper limit on the number of focus groups that could be held although this will be limited by resources.

The members of each focus group should usually have something in common: characteristics which are important to the topic of investigation. For example, they may all be members of the same profession or they may work in the same team. They may all be patients at a practice or have experienced a similar health problem or be receiving similar treatment. Participants might or might not know each other. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative Analysis

Analysis of data in a research project involves summarizing the mass of data collected and presenting the results in a way that communicates the most important features.  In quantitative research, analysis involves things like summarizing the frequencies of variables, differences between variables, and statistical tests designed to estimate the statistical significance of the results (i.e. the probability that they did not occur by chance). All this is done basically by counting how often something appears in the data and comparing one measurement with others. At the end of the analysis, not only do we have a mass of results but we also have what we might call “the big picture”: the major findings.

In qualitative research we are also interested in discovering the big picture but use different techniques to find it. For the most part we are interesting in using the data to describe a phenomenon, to articulate what it means and to understand it. Different approaches require different types of analysis: in this introductory text we shall focus on constant comparison.

Most types of analysis involve the categorization of verbal or behavioral data, for purposes of classification, summarization and tabulation.  The content can be analyzed on two levels. The basic level of analysis is a descriptive account of the data: this is what was actually said, documented or observed with nothing read into it and nothing assumed about it. Some texts refer to this as the manifest level of analysis.  The higher level of analysis is interpretative: it is concerned with what was meant by the response, what was inferred or implied. It is sometimes called the latent level of analysis.

“Content analysis” is a phrase that is sometimes used in the literature to mean any type of analysis of the content of a transcript. However it also has a more precise use, which is in connection with a technique involving counting the frequency of occurrence of particular phrases, words, or concepts, and is probably therefore best avoided – like the term “thematic analysis” – unless the writer is specifying exactly what type of content analysis is meant.

Keeping Records and Being Organized

Whatever qualitative approach is involved, it is very important to be organized when keeping records of data or reflexive notes or memos, or documents. As in all (qualitative or quantitative) research it is crucial to maintain a good audit trail which could in theory be inspected by others. It is also important to ensure that any saved records are kept in accordance with data protection regulations. This often involves careful anonymization procedures in labeling digital or analogue recordings or documents and text. All these issues should be discussed within a research team when drawing up the initial research protocol; ethics and research governance bodies will give feedback at an early stage.

Transcribing Qualitative Data

Transcribing is the procedure for producing a written version of an interview (e.g. in narrative, or grounded theory-based research) or conversation (e.g. if using conversation analysis). It is a full “script” of the interview or conversation. Transcribing is a time consuming process. The estimated ratio of time required for transcribing interviews is about 6:1. This means that it can take six hours to transcribe a one hour interview. It also produces a lot of written text. For conversation analysis or discourse analysis, very specialised transcription is required which includes precise notation of lengths of pauses and inflections, among other features, and this type of transcription is therefore much more time-consuming.

The research team should at an early stage consider the question “who should do the transcribing?” Ideally there might be resources to pay a professional transcriber who is aware of the need for confidentiality. This is usually more cost effective than a health care professional who will take longer and is more highly paid – on the other hand some researchers find that the process of transcribing helps them to become “immersed” in the data and is therefore a useful step in the process of interpreting how the account helps in the answering of the research question. If the transcriber is unfamiliar with the terminology or language contained in the interviews this can lead to mistakes or prolong the transcribing time. All transcripts should be carefully checked by the researcher (usually the interviewer) in conjunction with the recording.

When people are in conversation only a small proportion of the message is communicated in the actual words used. A larger proportion is transmitted in the way people speak. Tone and inflection are good indicators of a whole range of feelings and meanings. When transcribing, consideration should be given to whether and how these feelings and meanings can be communicated on paper by using punctuation marks (full stops and commas will be essential for meaning, for instance). As mentioned above, discourse and conversation analysts have a repertoire of specialised conventions for inflections and pauses, and would transcribe every sound an interviewee makes. Those using constant comparison would use less intensive transcribing, concentrating on the content of what is said, and some may decide to ignore “ums” and “errs” – these issues should be decided in advance within a team. It can be useful to adopt the convention that the interviewer’s speech is upper case, and the interviewee’s speech is lower case. Some researchers may consider techniques such as underlining and emboldening: all these need care to ensure that a transcript remains as faithful as possible to the speech it transcribes – if in doubt they are best avoided in favour of listening to the original recording to clarify any potentially ambiguous statements. 

Presenting Qualitative Research

Presenting Qualitative Research

When presenting the results of research, the objective is communication and so the presentation should be tailored to suit the audience. Whatever the audience or the form of the presentation, a good starting point is the research question. If you are clear what question you set out to address, it will be easier to make sense of the mountains of data you have generated and to present an interesting, meaningful and high quality paper or other presentation. Your analysis will probably have generated a number of themes or categories and you might have interpreted these in such a way as to contribute to the theory base in your discipline. The story of how you undertook this analytical process forms the basis of your presentation. A good way to structure the results section of a research report is to use, as subheadings, the main categories or themes which emerged from the data.

The thematic structure can be set out at the beginning, either as a list or in diagrammatic form. The overarching themes may be presented as sections with the contributory categories as sub sections. In this way, you can show how the categories of data are used to construct a case that the overarching themes are the main findings of the study. Further “evidence” to support the findings is usually provided by using direct quotations from respondents. Key quotations should be selected to illustrate the meaning of the data, care being taken not to rely heavily on a small number of particularly articulate sources. Consider the example below. It shows three overarching themes and the structure of sub-categories which emerged from an investigation into the need for an outreach teenage health clinic. 

The research question was “What do young people find difficult in their use of primary care services?”

1)    Health issues for young people

i)      Sexual health

(a)  safe sex

(b)  pregnancy

(c)  sexual behaviour

(d)  sexual orientation

ii)    Drugs      

(a)  smoking

(b)  alcohol

(c)  illicit drugs

iii)   Mental health     

(a)  mental health problems

(b)  relationships

(c)  self esteem

(d)  stress

2)    Barriers to accessing services

i)      Lack of knowledge

(a)  services available

(b)  understanding

(c)  perceptions

ii)    Attitudes

(a)  own beliefs                                                                                

(b)  peer pressure

(c)  expectations of staff

3)    Incentives to use services

i)      Availability

(a)  time

(b)  venue

ii)    Approachability

(a)  staff attributes

(b)  environment

A presentation of these findings would describe what was meant by “health issues” in general for the young people interviewed. This would be followed by identification and description of each of the broad categories of health issue - sexual health, drugs and mental health. Each category of health issue describes how a range of topics is included in this category (labeled (a), (b), ...).  Quotations extracted from the transcripts of interviews with young people should be used to illustrate why or how this is a health issue.

  

Quotations should be presented with a linking commentary and should be selected to illustrate such features as: the strength of opinion or belief, similarities between respondents, differences between respondents, the breadth of ideas.

As the researcher works through the different categories, links should be made between categories to demonstrate how the themes emerged and how conclusions about the findings were drawn. Many of the quotations will “speak for themselves” as they are examples of the manifest level of analysis - what people actually said. However, as previously mentioned in Section 6, analysis of data also includes interpretation which involves extracting the meaning of what was said and using it to comment on and contribute to the theory base.

Strategies which contribute to the rigor of a piece of research and any report of it are transparency and reflexivity. A researcher should make clear and justify the method used as well as the analytical process as described above. Some forms of reporting call for sections exclusively about the researchers’ roles in the research but when this is not the case, the style and content of the report should make apparent their roles and acknowledge the possible influence they will have had on the research process.

Some qualitative data can be dealt with in a quantitative way. If an idea appears in the data frequently, it may be feasible to count how often it appears. In the example of the teenage outreach service, it may be possible to say what percentage of respondents identified sexual health as a health issue, what percentage identified drugs and what percentage identified mental health. By counting the number of respondents who mention contraception as opposed to the number who mention safe sex it may appear that contraception is a greater concern than safe sex for young people. It may be feasible or even desirable to present some of the results quantitatively using tables and figures. It must be made clear however that these figures do not represent a statistical sample.