What do you think is the importance of qualitative research in your field of specialization brainly

Looking for a reliable market research provider? We conduct surveys, collate data and deliver insights from a trusted and engaged online panel, every day.

OnePoll has worked with brands, agencies and media organizations for over 15 years.

Our teams deliver custom market research solutions, PR survey packages and polls for publishers and broadcasters.

As members of AAPOR – the American Association for Public Opinion Research, OnePoll researchers adhere to the principles and actions set out in the AAPOR Code. Our research team are also members of ESOMAR and MRS.

1. Rist RC. On the relations among educational research paradigms: from disdain to detente. Anthropol Educ Q. 1977;8:42–49. [Google Scholar]

2. Guba EG. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles, USA: UCLA Graduate School of Education; 1978. [Google Scholar]

3. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press; 1970. [Google Scholar]

4. Cleland JA, Nicholson S, Kelly N, Moffat M. Taking context seriously: explaining widening access policy enactments in UK medical schools. Med Educ. 2015;49:25–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Wu HL, Volker DL. The use of theory in qualitative approaches to research: application in end-of-life studies. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65:2719–2732. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Strategies of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage Publications; 1998. [Google Scholar]

7. Carson D, Gilmore A, Perry C, Gronhaug K. Qualitative marketing research. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2001. [Google Scholar]

8. Mann K, MacLeod A. Constructivism: learning theories and approaches to research. In: Cleland JA, Durning SJ, editors. Researching medical education. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2015. pp. 51–66. [Google Scholar]

9. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27:10–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Fenwick T, Dahlgren MA. Towards socio-material approaches in simulation-based education: lessons from complexity theory. Med Educ. 2015;49:359–367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Cleland J, Walker KG, Gale M, Nicol LG. Simulation-based education: understanding the socio-cultural complexity of a surgical training ‘boot camp’ Med Educ. 2016;50:829–841. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications; 2009. [Google Scholar]

14. McMillan W. Theory in healthcare education research: the importance of worldview. In: Cleland J, Durning SJ, editors. Researching medical education. Chichester, USA: John Wiley and Sons; 2015. pp. 15–24. [Google Scholar]

15. Cleland JA, Knight LV, Rees CE, Tracey S, Bond CM. Is it me or is it them?: factors that influence the passing of underperforming students. Med Educ. 2008;42:800–809. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Bezuidenhout J, van Schalkwyk S. Developing the research question: setting the course for your research travels. In: Cleland J, Durning S, editors. Researching medical education. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2015. pp. 35–42. [Google Scholar]

17. Lingard L. Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:252–253. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Maxwell J. Designing a qualitative study. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ, editors. The Sage handbook of applied social research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 2008. pp. 214–253. [Google Scholar]

19. Anfara V, Mertz N. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 2006. [Google Scholar]

20. Schwartz-Barcott D, Patterson BJ, Lusardi P, Farmer BC. From practice to theory: tightening the link via three fieldwork strategies. J Adv Nurs. 2002;39:281–289. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Sandelowski M. Theory unmasked: the uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1993;16:213–218. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Rundall TG, Devers KJ, Sofaer S. Overview of the special supplement issue. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1091–1099. [Google Scholar]

23. Reeves S, Albert M, Kuper A, Hodges BD. Why use theories in qualitative research? BMJ. 2008;337:a949. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ. 2009;43:312–319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Ball S. Politics and policy making in education: explorations in policy sociology. London, USA: Routledge; 1990. [Google Scholar]

26. Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG, editor. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York, USA: Greenwood Press; 1986. pp. 241–258. [Google Scholar]

27. Engestrom Y. Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit; 1987. [Google Scholar]

28. Engestrom Y. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J Educ Work. 2001;14:133–156. [Google Scholar]

29. Davis B, Sumara DJ. Complexity and education: inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. [Google Scholar]

30. Hudson LA, Ozanne JL. Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer research. J Consum Res. 1988;14:508–521. [Google Scholar]

31. Murray JB, Evers DJ. Theory borrowing and reflectivity in interdisciplinary fields. Adv Consum Res. 1989;16:647–652. [Google Scholar]

32. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications; 2013. [Google Scholar]

33. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 2011. [Google Scholar]

34. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:1245–1251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 2012. [Google Scholar]

36. Reeves S, Peller J, Goldman J, Kitto S. Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE guide no. 80. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1365–e1379. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Helmich E, Bolhuis S, Dornan T, Laan R, Koopmans R. Entering medical practice for the very first time: emotional talk, meaning and identity development. Med Educ. 2012;46:1074–1086. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. Medical students’ understanding of empathy: a phenomenological study. Med Educ. 2012;46:306–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ. 2008;337:a567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative theory. Chicago, USA: Aldine Publishing; 1967. [Google Scholar]

41. Bryant A, Charmaz K. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2007. [Google Scholar]

42. Dey I. Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory inquiry. San Diego, USA: Academic Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]

43. Henwood K, Pidgeon N. Grounded theory. In: Breakwell GM, Hammond S, Fife-Shaw C, Smith J, editors. Research methods in psychology. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2006. pp. 342–365. [Google Scholar]

44. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 1984. [Google Scholar]

45. Yazan B. Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Qual Rep. 2015;20:134–152. [Google Scholar]

46. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:42–45. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Lambert H, McKevitt C. Anthropology in health research: from qualitative methods to multidisciplinarity. BMJ. 2002;325:210–213. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9:27–40. [Google Scholar]

49. Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The qualitative research interview. Med Educ. 2006;40:314–321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Creswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston, USA: Pearson; 2013. [Google Scholar]

51. Mason J. Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 1996. [Google Scholar]

52. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 2002. [Google Scholar]

53. Cleland J, Scott N, Harrild K, Moffat M. Using databases in medical education research: AMEE guide no. 77. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1103–e1122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications; 1994. [Google Scholar]

55. Savin-Baden M, Major CH. Qualitative research: the essential guide to theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge; 2013. [Google Scholar]

56. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe LV, O’Brien BC, Rees CE. Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ. 2017;51:40–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass; 1981. [Google Scholar]