ARVAC Bulletin 98

Qualitative Research and Voluntary action

Peter Alcock and Duncan Scott reflect on some key issues in qualitative research in the voluntary sector

Whenever there is a discussion about the appropriateness of different forms of social research in assisting our understanding of voluntary action a number of popular assumptions seem to get in the way. For example:

· That there are two separate types of social research - quantitative and qualitative
· That quantitative is somehow better than its qualitative sister
· That some of the reasons for the supposed inferiority of qualitative derive from its association with lone anthropologists and their tribes or communities. In short, it is deemed more expensive (particularly in time) and exotic - or less relevant
· That whatever research mix is adopted will be driven by specialist academic researchers, with lay researchers playing subsidiary roles

A newly published book, Close Work, is a collection of essays critically examining these popular assumptions as well as illustrating the other qualitative research approaches. The book arose from seminars, workshops and conferences run by the Voluntary Sector Studies Network and NCVO. At the heart of qualitative research are a handful of core elements:

Actor perspectives must be central, but analysed in relation to their social contexts, with emphasis on social dynamics. Social dynamics are the film strips of social life obtained more by observation and participation than interview and focus group and always likely to reveal the creative potential of the unexpected, confirmed by inductive reflection and analysis (Becker and Bryman, 2004, p.92)

What became clear from successive discussions about such elements is that qualitative approaches necessarily involve more than purely technical skills. Alongside all the methodological `wizardry` is a consistent need for social skills. Gaining access to new social contexts, developing relationships and finding acceptable roles, even whilst trying to maintain a coherent data-collection strategy – all these require researchers to act as instruments of the research process just as much as the survey forms, interview schedules, check-lists and so on.

Three linked conclusions emerged from our discussions and essays; and these have major developmental consequences:

· The education and training of qualitative researchers (who seek to get close to their research subjects) needs to pay attention to appropriate social skills

· The research subjects, so often socially skilled volunteers and workers, constitute a rich potential resource for the above-mentioned education and training.

· Finally, the academic research assembly line cannot, at current rates of production, meet the knowledge needs of the voluntary sector, nor those of related state, commercial and informal sectors.

Thus the existing knowledge and skills of the lay population of the voluntary and community sectors could become a useful growth-point for qualitative research development. At the very least, there is a potential reservoir of lay research capacity which can complement the outputs of traditional specialist centres in higher education. Furthermore, there may well be a high degree of symmetry in linking the needs of specialists and lay together.

Consideration of what developmental steps might be involved led us to talk about “beginning at the other end”. By this we meant spending as much time identifying the characteristics, competences and needs of both policy-makers and practitioners (volunteers and workers) as is traditionally given over to discussions of research methodology. This is where Close Work ends. We concluded that greater attention needed to be given to the landscapes of interaction between researcher and volunteer or worker, and between researcher and policy maker. After all, perhaps the main insight from qualitative research is the vital importance of representing, as faithfully as possible, the perspectives of the main actors. This is what the fuss over quality is all about. Too often, as qualitative researchers, we have captured (sometimes all too literally) the perspectives of users and clients. Now we need to spend more time getting closer to the lay researchers - what some call the small `r` researchers. Then the full potential of qualitative research, as a source of understanding voluntary and community action, may be better realised.

Professor Alcock is Head of School, School of Social Sciences, The University of Birmingham. He is joint editor of `Close Work`: Doing qualitative research in the voluntary sector, with Duncan Scott.
(Available @ www.cafonline.org/research/default.cfm
with a more useful paper version - £8 from Pete Alcock at University of Birmingham)

Becker S and Bryman A (eds.), 2004, Understanding Research for Social Policy and Practice: Themes, methods and approaches, Bristol, The Policy Press.