Essential Questions:

1. What are the advantages of qualitative descriptive research?
2. What are the limitations of the design?
3. How can these limitations be handled?

As indicated in previous modules, qualitative, descriptive research is becoming very prevalent in education, health care and the social science. Advocates for the approach have sparked significant debate regarding the rigor of this research that takes place out of traditional methodological boundaries (Kahlke, 2014). Despite these founded concerns, the approach is increasingly being embraced due to its flexible structure. This module outlines the key advantages and disadvantages of the approach and presents strategies to navigate the limitations. 

Advantages of Qualitative, Descriptive Research

Despite concerns surrounding qualitative, descriptive studies lacking rigor and adherence to an established method, the approach has merit. According to Kim, Sefcik, and Bradway (2017), the tendency for a more flexible approach is natural and unescapable when a researcher is studying a topic where few theories or empirical studies exist. Additionally, Kim et al. pointed out that new methods need to be developed to fit new fields. Both points indicate that generic qualitative (or descriptive) studies have their place in the larger research community. The two main advantages of the approach are:

1. Useful for advancing theory. If researchers are to think in new ways or explore new phenomena, then it will most likely be necessary to work outside of existing methodologies to support new theoretical approaches.
2. In well-researched areas, novel and interesting questions emerge from the “in-between” spaces that have yet to be explored. These new spaces can be explored from a qualitative, descriptive stance.

 Disadvantages of Qualitative, Descriptive Research

 Kahlke (2015) outlined three critiques or disadvantages of qualitative, descriptive studies.  

In general critics believe there is a lack of robust critical literature to refine the approach. Additionally, the “mixing” elements of other approaches can lead to some confusion and contradiction. Others contend that generic studies are the least complex of all qualitative designs and lack rigor. These arguments have merit and should be considered by the researcher.

1. Lack of specific theoretical alignment. Due to lack of allegiance to one specific epistemological and theoretical stance, critics deem this approach as “atheoretical.” Thus, the approach does not align with a specific theoretical assumption like other qualitative traditions. 
2. Lack of robust literature. Other critics believe that developing a research framework requires a robust selection of critical literature. The lack of prior work evaluating this approach causes some to question the quality of data and resultant findings. 
3. Method slurring. Critics view the lack of adherence to one specific methodology and theoretical framework result in a sloppy “mismash” of procedures, where some are borrowed, and others are combined. 

 Strategies to Mitigate Limitations

 Kahlke (2014) discussed strategies to mitigate the above limitations. 

1. Lack of specific theoretical alignment. Concerns about congruence between the study design and the researcher’s epistemological and theoretical self-awareness should be carefully reviewed seriously. These concerns can be addressed through a clearly and well thought out justification of research choices and linkages within the study. The researcher must understand and clearly articulate epistemological and theoretical foundations of the research framework. These linkages should be documented through an audit trail so those evaluating the study or seek to build on a specific research framework have a clear and transparent view of the study components. 
2. Lack of robust literature. Researchers should continue scholarly dialogue surrounding the development of broad criteria to establish the rigor of studies that cross qualitative research genres. Kahlke cites Tracy’s (2010) big tent criteria for rigorous qualitative studies: focus on the ends, rather than getting bogged down in the means. 
3. Method slurring. All researchers should document a clear study design, but novice researchers may struggle with blending or blurring of methodological boundaries. However, this issue can be meditated through careful consideration of all the elements of the research framework, the guidance of an experienced supervisor or mentor, and wide reading about qualitative methodological debates broadly and, in particular, the methodologies that the study is “borrowing” from. 

References 

Khalke R. (2014). Generic Qualitative Approaches: Pitfalls and Benefits of Methodological Mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. P. 37-52.

Kim, Sefcik, & Bradway (2017, November). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Res Nursing Health. 40(1): 23–42. doi:10.1002/nur.21768.

 Tracy, S. (2010, October). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research Article. Qualitative Inquiry 16(10):837-851