Category: Qualitative Methods Study

This post serves as a comprehensive bibliography of the sources I have complied and referenced from the ten targeted organizations in this study. It is not designed to be an exhaustive list of all sources available at each organization – I have included links to each of them for further exploration.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

Guidelines & Toolkits

IFRC. Handbook for Monitoring & Evaluation, 1st Edition. International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent Societies. Geneva, Switzerland. October 2002. Accessible here.

IFRC. Guidelines for Assessment in Emergencies. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Geneva, Switzerland. May 2008. Accessible here.

IFRC. Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Toolbox. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Geneva, Switzerland. October 1996. Accessible here.

IFRC. How to conduct a food security assessment: A step-by-step guide for National Societies in Africa. 2nd Edition. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Geneva, Switzerland. 2006. Accessible here.

Reports & Evaluations

IFRC. Alexander, Jessica. Emergency Shelter Cluster Review: Cyclone Nargis, Myanmar. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Geneva, Switzerland. April 2009. Accessible here.

For additional resources, please visit the IFRC website’s Publications and Evaluations sections. 

Continue reading


Direct Observation

“Direct observation is distinguished from participant observation in a number of ways. First, a direct observer doesn’t typically try to become a participant in the context. However, the direct observer does strive to be as unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias the observations. Second, direct observation suggests a more detached perspective. The researcher is watching rather than taking part. Consequently, technology can be a useful part of direct observation. For instance, one can videotape the phenomenon or observe from behind one-way mirrors. Third, direct observation tends to be more focused than participant observation. The researcher is observing certain sampled situations or people rather than trying to become immersed in the entire context. Finally, direct observation tends not to take as long as participant observation. For instance, one might observe child-mother interactions under specific circumstances in a laboratory setting from behind a one-way mirror, looking especially for the nonverbal cues being used.”

Source: Trochim, W. M. K. Research Methods Knowledge Base. (online resource) Qualitative Methods: Direct Observation.

Participant Observation

“One of the most common methods for qualitative data collection, participant observation is also one of the most demanding. It requires that the researcher become a participant in the culture or context being observed. The literature on participant observation discusses how to enter the context, the role of the researcher as a participant, the collection and storage of field notes, and the analysis of field data. Participant observation often requires months or years of intensive work because the researcher needs to become accepted as a natural part of the culture in order to assure that the observations are of the natural phenomenon.”

Source: Trochim, W. M. K. Research Methods Knowledge Base. (online resource) Qualitative Methods: Participant Observation.

Continue reading


Focus groups are semi-structured discussions with a small group of persons (usually 6-12 people) sharing a common feature (e.g., women of reproductive age, shareholders in an irrigation system, users of a certain service, etc.).  A small list of open-ended topics, posed as questions or participatory tasks, is used to focus the discussion. (CARE 1998)

Focus groups have been increasingly used in participatory evaluations and research to identify and describe insider perceptions, attitudes, and felt needs on a defined topic.  Focus group methods are also used with PRA tools to discuss and record the results.  (CARE 1998)

Strengths of Focus Groups: (CARE 1998)

  • Group interaction enriches the quality and quantity of information provided
  • Focus group discussions are quite good at disclosing the range and nature of problems, as well as eliciting preliminary ideas about solutions.

Weaknesses of Focus Groups: (CARE 1998)

  • Practice and experience in qualitative evaluation and research procedures are needed, especially thorough note-taking and sensitive facilitation.
  • Large amounts of information are easily obtained, necessitating skills in extracting and summarizing for the analysis


Information in this section has been excerpted entirely from: CARE & Barton, Tom (1998). Program Impact Evaluation Process, Module 2: M&E Toolbox. CARE Uganda. Accessible here.

Continue reading

Perspectives on Qualitative Research & Methods

The questions humanitarian organizations are trying to answer with their research will lead them to either quantitative or qualitative methods, or a combination of the two. The utility and efficacy of quantitative versus qualitative data-gathering is one that elicits much debate. Below are some perspectives on qualitative methods, the appropriate use of them, and their validity in research.


Depth Versus Breadth

“Think of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods as a seesaw. As if attached by a fulcrum, the form part of a single dynamic system, but at any given moment they produce two different, indeed sometimes incommensurable forms and knowledge: Quantitative methods produce breadth but sacrifice depth; qualitative methods produce depth, revealing a complexity that quantitative methods might miss, but they sacrifice breadth. Of course, this perfunctory description is something of a caricature; the best quantitative studies also build on at least some level of depth, and the best qualitative methods also offer at least some level of breadth. But at their most extreme, the two approaches have very different goals.” (pg. 51)

Source: Gottlieb, Alma. “Ethnography: Theory and Methods.” in Perecman, E. & Curran, S., eds. A Handbook for Social Science Reserch: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. London, UK. 2006.

Continue reading


This section pulled entirely from W.M.K. Trochim’s Unobtrusive Measures: Content Analysis.

Content analysis is the analysis of text documents. The analysis can be quantitative, qualitative or both. Typically, the major purpose of content analysis is to identify patterns in text. Content analysis is an extremely broad area of research. It includes:

A. Thematic analysis of text

The identification of themes or major ideas in a document or set of documents. The documents can be any kind of text including field notes, newspaper articles, technical papers or organizational memos.

B. Indexing

There are a wide variety of automated methods for rapidly indexing text documents. For instance, Key Words in Context (KWIC) analysis is a computer analysis of text data. A computer program scans the text and indexes all key words. A key word is any term in the text that is not included in an exception dictionary. Typically you would set up an exception dictionary that includes all non-essential words like “is”, “and”, and “of”. All key words are alphabetized and are listed with the text that precedes and follows it so the researcher can see the word in the context in which it occurred in the text. In an analysis of interview text, for instance, one could easily identify all uses of the term “abuse” and the context in which they were used.

C. Quantitative descriptive analysis

Here the purpose is to describe features of the text quantitatively. For instance, you might want to find out which words or phrases were used most frequently in the text. Again, this type of analysis is most often done directly with computer programs.

Continue reading


Key informant interviews are qualitative, in-depth interviews of 15 to 35 people selected for their first-hand knowledge about a topic of interest. The interviews are loosely structured, relying on a list of issues to be discussed. Key informant interviews resemble a conversation among acquaintances, allowing a free flow of ideas and information. Interviewers frame questions spontaneously, probe for information and takes notes, which are elaborated on later. (USAID 1996)

Specifically, it is useful in the following situations: (USAID 1996)

  1. When qualitative, descriptive information is sufficient for decision- making.
  2. When there is a need to understand motivation, behavior, and perspectives of our customers and partners. In-depth interviews of program planners and managers, service providers, host government officials, and beneficiaries concerning their attitudes and behaviors about a USAID activity can help explain its successes and shortcomings.
  3. When a main purpose is to generate recommendations. Key informants can help formulate recommendations that can improve a program’s performance.
  4. When quantitative data collected through other methods need to be interpreted. Key informant interviews can provide the how and why of what happened. If, for example, a sample survey showed farmers were failing to make loan repayments, key informant interviews could uncover the reasons.
  5. When preliminary information is needed to design a comprehensive quantitative study. Key informant interviews can help frame the issues before the survey is undertaken.

Source: US Agency for International Development (USAID). Performance Monitoring & Evaluation TIPS: Conducting Key Informant Interviews. Washington, DC. 1996. Number 2. Accessible here.


Continue reading


The below is pulled entirely from Bruce Berg’s Book: Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (7th Edition). Allyn & Bacon. 2008.

Case Study Definition:

“a method involving systematically gathering enough information about a particular person, social setting, event, or group to permit the researcher to effectively understand how the subject operates or functions.” (pg. 317)


Can be rather pointed in their focus or approach a broad view of life and society. Extremely rich, detailed, and in-depth information is gathered. Often used as a method for guiding research – aim is to uncover the manifest interaction of significant factors characteristic of the phenomenon, individual, community, or institution being studied. Focus on holistic description and explanation. (pg. 318)

Theory-Before-Research (reasons for): (pg. 319)

  • It can assist in selecting cases to be studied and whether to use single-case or multiple-case design.
  • Can help specify what is being explored when undertaking exploratory studies.
  • Aids in defining a complete and appropriate description when undertaking descriptive studies.
  • Can stimulate rival theories in exploratory case studies.
  • Can support generalization the researcher may seek to make to other cases.

Research-Before-Theory (Grounded Theory): (pg. 320)

Basically, “theory can be uncovered and informed as a consequence of the data collection and interpretations of this data made throughout the development of the case study – hence, a grounded case study.” (pg. 320) – see figure 10.1 on page 321 for an illustration of the development of grounded theory via case study methods.

Continue reading