phd thesis qualitative study

• Section 2: Home
• Developing the Quantitative Research Design
• Qualitative Descriptive Design
• Design and Development Research (DDR) For Instructional Design
• Qualitative Narrative Inquiry Research
• Action Research Resource
• Case Study Design in an Applied Doctorate

Qualitative Research Designs

Case study design, using case study design in the applied doctoral experience (ade), applicability of case study design to applied problem of practice, case study design references.

• SAGE Research Methods
• Research Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• Dataset Examples (SAGE) This link opens in a new window
• IRB Resource Center This link opens in a new window

The field of qualitative research there are a number of research designs (also referred to as “traditions” or “genres”), including case study, phenomenology, narrative inquiry, action research, ethnography, grounded theory, as well as a number of critical genres including Feminist theory, indigenous research, critical race theory and cultural studies. The choice of research design is directly tied to and must be aligned with your research problem and purpose. As Bloomberg & Volpe (2019) explain:

Choice of research design is directly tied to research problem and purpose. As the researcher, you actively create the link among problem, purpose, and design through a process of reflecting on problem and purpose, focusing on researchable questions, and considering how to best address these questions. Thinking along these lines affords a research study methodological congruence (p. 38).

Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of a bounded social phenomenon, be this a social system such as a program, event, institution, organization, or community (Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018). Case study is employed across disciplines, including education, health care, social work, sociology, and organizational studies. The purpose is to generate understanding and deep insights to inform professional practice, policy development, and community or social action (Bloomberg 2018).

Yin (2018) and Stake (1995, 2005), two of the key proponents of case study methodology, use different terms to describe case studies. Yin categorizes case studies as exploratory or descriptive . The former is used to explore those situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear single set of outcomes. The latter is used to describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. Stake identifies case studies as intrinsic or instrumental , and he proposes that a primary distinction in designing case studies is between single and multiple (or collective) case study designs. A single case study may be an instrumental case study (research focuses on an issue or concern in one bounded case) or an intrinsic case study (the focus is on the case itself because the case presents a unique situation). A longitudinal case study design is chosen when the researcher seeks to examine the same single case at two or more different points in time or to capture trends over time. A multiple case study design is used when a researcher seeks to determine the prevalence or frequency of a particular phenomenon. This approach is useful when cases are used for purposes of a cross-case analysis in order to compare, contrast, and synthesize perspectives regarding the same issue. The focus is on the analysis of diverse cases to determine how these confirm the findings within or between cases, or call the findings into question.

Case study affords significant interaction with research participants, providing an in-depth picture of the phenomenon (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Research is extensive, drawing on multiple methods of data collection, and involves multiple data sources. Triangulation is critical in attempting to obtain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study and adds rigor, breadth, and depth to the study and provides corroborative evidence of the data obtained. Analysis of data can be holistic or embedded—that is, dealing with the whole or parts of the case (Yin, 2018). With multiple cases the typical analytic strategy is to provide detailed description of themes within each case (within-case analysis), followed by thematic analysis across cases (cross-case analysis), providing insights regarding how individual cases are comparable along important dimensions. Research culminates in the production of a detailed description of a setting and its participants, accompanied by an analysis of the data for themes or patterns (Stake, 1995, 2005; Yin, 2018). In addition to thick, rich description, the researcher’s interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations contribute to the reader’s overall understanding of the case study.

Analysis of findings should show that the researcher has attended to all the data, should address the most significant aspects of the case, and should demonstrate familiarity with the prevailing thinking and discourse about the topic. The goal of case study design (as with all qualitative designs) is not generalizability but rather transferability —that is, how (if at all) and in what ways understanding and knowledge can be applied in similar contexts and settings. The qualitative researcher attempts to address the issue of transferability by way of thick, rich description that will provide the basis for a case or cases to have relevance and potential application across a broader context.

Qualitative research methods ask the questions of "what" and "how" a phenomenon is understood in a real-life context (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). In the education field, qualitative research methods uncover educational experiences and practices because qualitative research allows the researcher to reveal new knowledge and understanding. Moreover, qualitative descriptive case studies describe, analyze and interpret events that explain the reasoning behind specific phenomena (Bloomberg, 2018). As such, case study design can be the foundation for a rigorous study within the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE).

Case study design is an appropriate research design to consider when conceptualizing and conducting a dissertation research study that is based on an applied problem of practice with inherent real-life educational implications. Case study researchers study current, real-life cases that are in progress so that they can gather accurate information that is current. This fits well with the ADE program, as students are typically exploring a problem of practice. Because of the flexibility of the methods used, a descriptive design provides the researcher with the opportunity to choose data collection methods that are best suited to a practice-based research purpose, and can include individual interviews, focus groups, observation, surveys, and critical incident questionnaires. Methods are triangulated to contribute to the study’s trustworthiness. In selecting the set of data collection methods, it is important that the researcher carefully consider the alignment between research questions and the type of data that is needed to address these. Each data source is one piece of the “puzzle,” that contributes to the researcher’s holistic understanding of a phenomenon. The various strands of data are woven together holistically to promote a deeper understanding of the case and its application to an educationally-based problem of practice.

Research studies within the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE) will be practical in nature and focus on problems and issues that inform educational practice.  Many of the types of studies that fall within the ADE framework are exploratory, and align with case study design. Case study design fits very well with applied problems related to educational practice, as the following set of examples illustrate:

Elementary Bilingual Education Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Teaching English Language Learners: A Qualitative Case Study

The problem to be addressed in the proposed study is that some elementary bilingual education teachers’ beliefs about their lack of preparedness to teach the English language may negatively impact the language proficiency skills of Hispanic ELLs (Ernst-Slavit & Wenger, 2016; Fuchs et al., 2018; Hoque, 2016). The purpose of the proposed qualitative descriptive case study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of elementary bilingual education teachers regarding their perceived lack of preparedness to teach the English language and how this may impact the language proficiency of Hispanic ELLs.

Exploring Minority Teachers Experiences Pertaining to their Value in Education: A Single Case Study of Teachers in New York City

The problem is that minority K-12 teachers are underrepresented in the United States, with research indicating that school leaders and teachers in schools that are populated mainly by black students, staffed mostly by white teachers who may be unprepared to deal with biases and stereotypes that are ingrained in schools (Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015; Milligan & Howley, 2015). The purpose of this qualitative exploratory single case study was to develop a clearer understanding of minority teachers’ experiences concerning the under-representation of minority K-12 teachers in urban school districts in the United States since there are so few of them.

Exploring the Impact of an Urban Teacher Residency Program on Teachers’ Cultural Intelligence: A Qualitative Case Study

The problem to be addressed by this case study is that teacher candidates often report being unprepared and ill-equipped to effectively educate culturally diverse students (Skepple, 2015; Beutel, 2018). The purpose of this study was to explore and gain an in-depth understanding of the perceived impact of an urban teacher residency program in urban Iowa on teachers’ cultural competence using the cultural intelligence (CQ) framework (Earley & Ang, 2003).

Qualitative Case Study that Explores Self-Efficacy and Mentorship on Women in Academic Administrative Leadership Roles

The problem was that female school-level administrators might be less likely to experience mentorship, thereby potentially decreasing their self-efficacy (Bing & Smith, 2019; Brown, 2020; Grant, 2021). The purpose of this case study was to determine to what extent female school-level administrators in the United States who had a mentor have a sense of self-efficacy and to examine the relationship between mentorship and self-efficacy.

Suburban Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Culturally Responsive Teaching to Promote Connectedness in Students of Color: A Qualitative Case Study

The problem to be addressed in this study is the racial discrimination experienced by students of color in suburban schools and the resulting negative school experience (Jara & Bloomsbury, 2020; Jones, 2019; Kohli et al., 2017; Wandix-White, 2020). The purpose of this case study is to explore how culturally responsive practices can counteract systemic racism and discrimination in suburban schools thereby meeting the needs of students of color by creating positive learning experiences. 

As you can see, all of these studies were well suited to qualitative case study design. In each of these studies, the applied research problem and research purpose were clearly grounded in educational practice as well as directly aligned with qualitative case study methodology. In the Applied Doctoral Experience (ADE), you will be focused on addressing or resolving an educationally relevant research problem of practice. As such, your case study, with clear boundaries, will be one that centers on a real-life authentic problem in your field of practice that you believe is in need of resolution or improvement, and that the outcome thereof will be educationally valuable.

Bloomberg, L. D. (2018). Case study method. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 237–239). SAGE. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/nu.edu?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmethods.sagepub.com%2FReference%2Fthe-sage-encyclopedia-of-educational-research-measurement-and-evaluation%2Fi4294.xml

Bloomberg, L. D. & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end . (4th Ed.). SAGE.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). SAGE.

Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Designs and methods. SAGE.

• << Previous: Action Research Resource
• Next: SAGE Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2023 8:05 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1013605

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

How To Write The Results/Findings Chapter

For qualitative studies (dissertations & theses).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2021

So, you’ve collected and analysed your qualitative data, and it’s time to write up your results chapter. But where do you start? In this post, we’ll guide you through the qualitative results chapter (also called the findings chapter), step by step. 

Overview: Qualitative Results Chapter

• What (exactly) the qualitative results chapter is
• What to include in your results chapter
• How to write up your results chapter
• A few tips and tricks to help you along the way
• Free results chapter template

What exactly is the results chapter?

The results chapter in a dissertation or thesis (or any formal academic research piece) is where you objectively and neutrally present the findings of your qualitative analysis (or analyses if you used multiple qualitative analysis methods ). This chapter can sometimes be combined with the discussion chapter (where you interpret the data and discuss its meaning), depending on your university’s preference.  We’ll treat the two chapters as separate, as that’s the most common approach.

In contrast to a quantitative results chapter that presents numbers and statistics, a qualitative results chapter presents data primarily in the form of words . But this doesn’t mean that a qualitative study can’t have quantitative elements – you could, for example, present the number of times a theme or topic pops up in your data, depending on the analysis method(s) you adopt.

Adding a quantitative element to your study can add some rigour, which strengthens your results by providing more evidence for your claims. This is particularly common when using qualitative content analysis. Keep in mind though that qualitative research aims to achieve depth, richness and identify nuances , so don’t get tunnel vision by focusing on the numbers. They’re just cream on top in a qualitative analysis.

So, to recap, the results chapter is where you objectively present the findings of your analysis, without interpreting them (you’ll save that for the discussion chapter). With that out the way, let’s take a look at what you should include in your results chapter.

What should you include in the results chapter?

As we’ve mentioned, your qualitative results chapter should purely present and describe your results , not interpret them in relation to the existing literature or your research questions . Any speculations or discussion about the implications of your findings should be reserved for your discussion chapter.

In your results chapter, you’ll want to talk about your analysis findings and whether or not they support your hypotheses (if you have any). Naturally, the exact contents of your results chapter will depend on which qualitative analysis method (or methods) you use. For example, if you were to use thematic analysis, you’d detail the themes identified in your analysis, using extracts from the transcripts or text to support your claims.

While you do need to present your analysis findings in some detail, you should avoid dumping large amounts of raw data in this chapter. Instead, focus on presenting the key findings and using a handful of select quotes or text extracts to support each finding . The reams of data and analysis can be relegated to your appendices.

While it’s tempting to include every last detail you found in your qualitative analysis, it is important to make sure that you report only that which is relevant to your research aims, objectives and research questions .  Always keep these three components, as well as your hypotheses (if you have any) front of mind when writing the chapter and use them as a filter to decide what’s relevant and what’s not.

Need a helping hand?

How do I write the results chapter?

Now that we’ve covered the basics, it’s time to look at how to structure your chapter. Broadly speaking, the results chapter needs to contain three core components – the introduction, the body and the concluding summary. Let’s take a look at each of these.

Section 1: Introduction

The first step is to craft a brief introduction to the chapter. This intro is vital as it provides some context for your findings. In your introduction, you should begin by reiterating your problem statement and research questions and highlight the purpose of your research . Make sure that you spell this out for the reader so that the rest of your chapter is well contextualised.

The next step is to briefly outline the structure of your results chapter. In other words, explain what’s included in the chapter and what the reader can expect. In the results chapter, you want to tell a story that is coherent, flows logically, and is easy to follow , so make sure that you plan your structure out well and convey that structure (at a high level), so that your reader is well oriented.

The introduction section shouldn’t be lengthy. Two or three short paragraphs should be more than adequate. It is merely an introduction and overview, not a summary of the chapter.

Pro Tip – To help you structure your chapter, it can be useful to set up an initial draft with (sub)section headings so that you’re able to easily (re)arrange parts of your chapter. This will also help your reader to follow your results and give your chapter some coherence.  Be sure to use level-based heading styles (e.g. Heading 1, 2, 3 styles) to help the reader differentiate between levels visually. You can find these options in Word (example below).

Section 2: Body

Before we get started on what to include in the body of your chapter, it’s vital to remember that a results section should be completely objective and descriptive, not interpretive . So, be careful not to use words such as, “suggests” or “implies”, as these usually accompany some form of interpretation – that’s reserved for your discussion chapter.

The structure of your body section is very important , so make sure that you plan it out well. When planning out your qualitative results chapter, create sections and subsections so that you can maintain the flow of the story you’re trying to tell. Be sure to systematically and consistently describe each portion of results. Try to adopt a standardised structure for each portion so that you achieve a high level of consistency throughout the chapter.

For qualitative studies, results chapters tend to be structured according to themes , which makes it easier for readers to follow. However, keep in mind that not all results chapters have to be structured in this manner. For example, if you’re conducting a longitudinal study, you may want to structure your chapter chronologically. Similarly, you might structure this chapter based on your theoretical framework . The exact structure of your chapter will depend on the nature of your study , especially your research questions.

As you work through the body of your chapter, make sure that you use quotes to substantiate every one of your claims . You can present these quotes in italics to differentiate them from your own words. A general rule of thumb is to use at least two pieces of evidence per claim, and these should be linked directly to your data. Also, remember that you need to include all relevant results , not just the ones that support your assumptions or initial leanings.

In addition to including quotes, you can also link your claims to the data by using appendices , which you should reference throughout your text. When you reference, make sure that you include both the name/number of the appendix , as well as the line(s) from which you drew your data.

As referencing styles can vary greatly, be sure to look up the appendix referencing conventions of your university’s prescribed style (e.g. APA , Harvard, etc) and keep this consistent throughout your chapter.

Section 3: Concluding summary

The concluding summary is very important because it summarises your key findings and lays the foundation for the discussion chapter . Keep in mind that some readers may skip directly to this section (from the introduction section), so make sure that it can be read and understood well in isolation.

In this section, you need to remind the reader of the key findings. That is, the results that directly relate to your research questions and that you will build upon in your discussion chapter. Remember, your reader has digested a lot of information in this chapter, so you need to use this section to remind them of the most important takeaways.

Importantly, the concluding summary should not present any new information and should only describe what you’ve already presented in your chapter. Keep it concise – you’re not summarising the whole chapter, just the essentials.

Tips for writing an A-grade results chapter

Now that you’ve got a clear picture of what the qualitative results chapter is all about, here are some quick tips and reminders to help you craft a high-quality chapter:

• Your results chapter should be written in the past tense . You’ve done the work already, so you want to tell the reader what you found , not what you are currently finding .
• Make sure that you review your work multiple times and check that every claim is adequately backed up by evidence . Aim for at least two examples per claim, and make use of an appendix to reference these.
• When writing up your results, make sure that you stick to only what is relevant . Don’t waste time on data that are not relevant to your research objectives and research questions.
• Use headings and subheadings to create an intuitive, easy to follow piece of writing. Make use of Microsoft Word’s “heading styles” and be sure to use them consistently.
• When referring to numerical data, tables and figures can provide a useful visual aid. When using these, make sure that they can be read and understood independent of your body text (i.e. that they can stand-alone). To this end, use clear, concise labels for each of your tables or figures and make use of colours to code indicate differences or hierarchy.
• Similarly, when you’re writing up your chapter, it can be useful to highlight topics and themes in different colours . This can help you to differentiate between your data if you get a bit overwhelmed and will also help you to ensure that your results flow logically and coherently.

If you have any questions, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your results chapter (or any chapter of your dissertation or thesis), check out our private dissertation coaching service here or book a free initial consultation to discuss how we can help you.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

20 Comments

This was extremely helpful. Thanks a lot guys

Hi, thanks for the great research support platform created by the gradcoach team!

I wanted to ask- While “suggests” or “implies” are interpretive terms, what terms could we use for the results chapter? Could you share some examples of descriptive terms?

I think that instead of saying, ‘The data suggested, or The data implied,’ you can say, ‘The Data showed or revealed, or illustrated or outlined’…If interview data, you may say Jane Doe illuminated or elaborated, or Jane Doe described… or Jane Doe expressed or stated.

I found this article very useful. Thank you very much for the outstanding work you are doing.

What if i have 3 different interviewees answering the same interview questions? Should i then present the results in form of the table with the division on the 3 perspectives or rather give a results in form of the text and highlight who said what?

I think this tabular representation of results is a great idea. I am doing it too along with the text. Thanks

That was helpful was struggling to separate the discussion from the findings

this was very useful, Thank you.

Very helpful, I am confident to write my results chapter now.

It is so helpful! It is a good job. Thank you very much!

Very useful, well explained. Many thanks.

Hello, I appreciate the way you provided a supportive comments about qualitative results presenting tips

I loved this! It explains everything needed, and it has helped me better organize my thoughts. What words should I not use while writing my results section, other than subjective ones.

Thanks a lot, it is really helpful

Thank you so much dear, i really appropriate your nice explanations about this.

Thank you so much for this! I was wondering if anyone could help with how to prproperly integrate quotations (Excerpts) from interviews in the finding chapter in a qualitative research. Please GradCoach, address this issue and provide examples.

what if I’m not doing any interviews myself and all the information is coming from case studies that have already done the research.

Very helpful thank you.

This was very helpful as I was wondering how to structure this part of my dissertation, to include the quotes… Thanks for this explanation

This is very helpful, thanks! I am required to write up my results chapters with the discussion in each of them – any tips and tricks for this strategy?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Scand J Prim Health Care
• v.35(4); 2017 Dec

Qualitative methods in PhD theses from general practice in Scandinavia

Kirsti malterud.

a The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

b Research Unit for General Practice, Uni Research Health, Bergen, Norway

c Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Katarina Hamberg

d Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Susanne Reventlow

Qualitative methodology is gaining increasing attention and esteem in medical research, with general practice research taking a lead. With these methods, human and social interaction and meaning can be explored and shared by systematic interpretation of text from talk, observation or video. Qualitative studies are often included in Ph.D. theses from general practice in Scandinavia. Still, the Ph.D. programs across nations and institutions offer only limited training in qualitative methods. In this opinion article, we draw upon our observations and experiences, unpacking and reflecting upon values and challenges at stake when qualitative studies are included in Ph.D. theses. Hypotheses to explain these observations are presented, followed by suggestions for standards of evaluation and improvement of Ph.D. programs. The authors conclude that multimethod Ph.D. theses should be encouraged in general practice research, in order to offer future researchers an appropriate toolbox.

Qualitative methods in general practice research

Qualitative research methods for the interpretation and analysis of texts already existing or transcribed from talk, observation or video can be used to explore meanings of social and bodily phenomena as how and why human beings act as they do, within their natural context [ 1 ]. Qualitative studies explain why promising clinical interventions do not always work in the real world, how patients experience care, how practitioners think or how the complex relations between the healthcare system and the outside world are working [ 2 ]. The general practitioner (GP) meets people over time in their social environments, often with undifferentiated symptoms, chronic disease or multimorbidity [ 3 ]. Clinical knowledge beyond measures and numbers is necessary to understand not only the diseases, but also the patients with their suffering, strengths and coping [ 4 ]. It is no surprise that general practice researchers have played important roles to lead the way for qualitative methods in medicine.

The authors of the present article have participated in the development of qualitative methods within Scandinavian general practice research, achieving experiences and presenting arguments about adequacy and proficiency of methods [ 1 , 5–10 ]. Sharing an interest for education, implementation and scientific standards for qualitative methods in general practice research, we have extensive experience as supervisors as well as evaluators of Ph.D. theses with qualitative studies.

Over years, we have noticed different customs for writing and evaluating Ph.D.-theses within our academic field. Ph.D. practices signify disciplinary norms, which establish and consolidate scholarly standards, often subtly and implicitly. Embedded in official evaluation systems, attitudes institutionalised by such practices have a strong impact on how medical knowledge is constructed. Empirical data about these issues are not easily available. In this opinion article, we draw upon our observations and experiences, unpacking and reflecting upon values and challenges at stake when qualitative studies are included in PhD theses. We restrict our exploration to general practice research in Scandinavia.

Institutional framework and evaluation procedures

A Ph.D. is the final documentation from a training program intended to qualify academics for postdoctoral research, academic supervision and permanent tenure. For PhDs from general practice research, similarities across the three Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) are more prominent than differences. The estimated time is three to four years of full-time work, including an educational program and a thesis, which finally is to be evaluated and defended. One or more supervisors guide the candidate throughout the Ph.D. period.

Candidates apply for and are admitted to the Ph.D. program. Educational programs and requirements, differing between institutions and across nations, consist of a minor mandatory curriculum and elective elements. All Ph.D. students attend courses about responsible conduct of research. Modules of research ethics, philosophy of science and biostatistics methods are often components of the program. When qualitative methodology is offered, training is often voluntary and basic, with advanced courses as electives. A Ph.D. thesis is currently typically based on three articles (quantitative studies, qualitative studies or both), published in or submitted to international peer-reviewed journals, and a synopsis with overall presentations and discussions.

The candidate’s progress is evaluated during the program. Intermediate assessment is conducted in all three countries, but formal procedures and content vary across borders and institutions. In Norway and Sweden, a mandatory mid-seminar is conducted, while in Denmark the main supervisor is responsible for a formal assessment, which can include a report with presentation and discussion of the process.

When the thesis is submitted to the university, procedures for assessment differ across countries. In Norway and Denmark, the evaluation committee presents a written statement concluding whether the thesis deserves a public defence. A negative conclusion is usually followed by an invitation to resubmit. In Sweden, some universities conduct pre-assessments, while others leave the whole evaluation to the defence.

After the formal, public defence, the evaluation committee takes the formal decision of acceptance. In Sweden, an opponent who is not a member of the committee exposes the thesis and the candidate, after which the committee makes its final verdict. Evaluation committees and opponents for Ph.D. theses with qualitative studies often include scholars from sociology, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, nursing or philosophy, in addition to general practice researchers.

Acceptable scientific quality of Ph.D. theses – a matter of variation?

Detailed procedures for assessment of the scientific quality of Ph.D. theses differ across Scandinavian medical schools. We have previously described how the role of the opponents and committee is different in Sweden compared to Norway and Denmark. Furthermore, procedures when a thesis is not accepted differ for example even between the universities in Oslo as compared to Bergen. Summarizing our own experiences as members of Ph.D. committees, we suggest that a thesis of good scientific quality, independent of research method, demonstrates consistency between well-defined overall aim and study objectives, as related to design, material, method and results. Distinct presentation of relevant findings is appreciated. Finally, we regard a critical and focused presentation, interpretation and discussion of strengths and limitations of methods and findings, as essential indications of quality,

We have noticed substantial variations in pre-assessments and evaluation from committees for theses where qualitative studies are involved. A comparable level of uncertainty does, to our knowledge, not appear in evaluation of theses based on quantitative studies alone. This is probably because quantitative methods traditionally represent the state of the art within medical research, leading to a more standardized approach to conduct as well as assessment.

Inconsistent practice leads to unpredictability for candidates and supervisors, especially when a thesis is not accepted for defence. According to the rules, reasons for rejection shall be explicated and seem to be very diverse, as are also the type and level of objections required for rejection. Admittedly, some of these theses may be only just sufficiently passable. We have, however, also noticed rejection of theses holding acceptable methodological quality, and even theses with brave and challenging qualitative analysis and theoretical discussions have been rejected. At the same time, qualitative (and quantitative) theses of a much more traditional academic format are being accepted.

Challenges for qualitative research in the Ph.D. programs

As GP researchers, we have long been concerned by the biases of the Ph.D. programs as training for future research, tending to encourage a confined quantitative focus of inquiry. Although multimethod Ph.D. theses are quite frequent within general practice research compared to other fields, Ph.D. programs do not encourage candidates toward multimethod competence. Furthermore, some scholars and institutions argue that only mono-method theses – qualitative studies only, or quantitative studies only – allow candidates the necessary depth to learn the tools of the trade.

However, general practice needs researchers with skills and awareness regarding qualitative as well as quantitative methods, to choose the most appropriate design and tool. We therefore propose a shift, encouraging multimethod competence in Ph.D. programs and theses. The shift implies substantial discussions about methodological skills required for a Ph.D., as well as the assessment of PhD theses with qualitative studies from general practice. A minimum requirement for a thesis including a qualitative study should be a supervisor holding qualitative skills and experience. This is a better alternative than leaving qualitative studies to social scientists, which some medical academic environments do.

A hypothesis to explain the shifting evaluation standards described above is that the interdisciplinarity of evaluation committees imposes methodological standards from different disciplines beyond medicine. General practice calls for knowledge intended for implementation with patients and GPs in a foreseeable future – a goal that may divert from the analytic and theoretical pursuits of a researcher from the humanities or social sciences. Furthermore, academic pursuits are intended to increase the understanding of the discipline itself by developing theories and challenging knowledge that is taken for granted [ 11 ]. Hence, persistent attention to and respect for the connections between ontology and epistemology within the distinctive domain where research is supposed to contribute, is necessary for adequate theoretical endeavours [ 10 ]. Personally, we are involved in several interdisciplinary collaborations, appreciating the impact of such for the development of health care systems and sustainable knowledge [ 12 ]. Yet, we recommend caution when choosing evaluators from other disciplines. Has the potential evaluator sufficient knowledge and understanding of the general practice context to conduct an assessment that recognizes the nature and standards of this academic field?

Sometimes, we suggest, negative assessments or rejections indicate that committee members have misunderstood their assignment. Some committees seem to overwork their evaluation, highlighting their own ideas and views instead of trying to understand and evaluate what the candidate has achieved. The evaluation of a Ph.D. thesis should not be the arena for promoting personal idiosyncrasies such as positions in ongoing methodological debates or omission of certain ‘mandatory’ references. Sometimes, the evaluation committee returns the thesis to the candidate, suggesting minor or major revisions. Such responses, comparable to the dialogue format expected by peer reviewers of a journal, might improve the quality, but neglect the question of whether the thesis merits the standard of deserving a public defence; in the version, it was submitted. Clear evaluation instructions contribute to prevention of such pitfalls.

Developing qualitative research through Ph.D. assessment

We suggest that particular criteria must be added in evaluation of Ph.D. theses incorporating qualitative studies. Basic criteria include demonstration of reflexivity [ 13 ], detailed presentation of the analysis process, a qualified discussion of validity as well as information power of the data. Appropriate application of theory for analysis and a well-written account of relevant findings are also important. Such aspects can better be elaborated in the synopsis than in the brief format of the articles. Consequently, the synopsis will be the most important issue for assessment.

In our opinion, the synopsis of a first-class thesis includes a focused discussion of relevant methodical challenges as well as a theory-supported synthesis of findings from all the included articles. A decent thesis may, however, be assessed as acceptable without being outstanding. After all, the Ph.D. represents the endpoint of systematic research training, and not the level of a Nobel Prize. A weak thesis is often characterized by too broadly defined aims, leading to excessive amounts of empirical data. The subsequent superficial analysis leads to descriptive presentations of trivial phenomena well known in advance, sometimes to be confused with the candidate’s preconceptions. Discussion of data quality or validity is often neglected, thereby undermining the trustworthiness of the results. Other recurrent flaws are lacking understanding of philosophy of science underlying the inductive logic of the interpretative paradigm, indicated for example by apologies for a sample perceived as small by quantitative standards, detailed though general explanations for the limited generalizability of qualitative studies, missing discussions about external validity beyond the population level, or subjectivity perceived as bias to be avoided. Theses demonstrating lack of reflexivity by omitting considerations about the role of the researcher are also seen.

Too often, theses with qualitative studies are overloaded with undigested grandiloquent theory and philosophy, lacking a clear connection to the aims and findings. On the other hand, superficial or textbook-like general discussions of strengths and weaknesses without specific connection to the actual project indicate an inadequate academic level. Studies presented as mixed methods seem to be especially vulnerable, with candidates not always distinguishing sufficiently clear between the methods they have used and their epistemological foundations.

Implications for academic practice

The last decades, qualitative methodology has earned increasing recognition in medical research, but is still often ignored in Ph.D. programs and by academic supervisors. Based on reflections upon observations and experiences, we have in this opinion paper suggested that substantial and unpredictable variation regarding evaluation of theses with qualitative studies indicates a lack of consensus regarding scientific quality within this field. There is no reason to endorse acceptance of Ph.D. theses of inferior quality based on the excuse that qualitative methods are still young and underdeveloped. Such practices will lead to later substandard research, supervision and teaching and jeopardize the reputation of qualitative research methods. A minimum requirement for a Ph.D. project incorporating qualitative studies is a supervisor with adequate methodological skills. Future GP researchers need more than one tool in their toolbox to design a study with sufficient validity for the broad range of study questions in the field of general practice.

Disclosure statement

Ethical approval was not necessary for this article.

There was no funding, conflict of interest or registration number.

Notes on contributors

Kirsti Malterud , MD, GP, PhD, is senior researcher at Uni Research, and professor in general practice, University of Bergen, Norway.

Katarina Hamberg , MD, GP, PhD, is professor infamilymedicine, Umeå University, Sweden. She contributed on elaboration and revision of the manuscript.

Susanne Reventlow , MD, GP, DMSci, Mag. Scient. Anthropology, is professor and head of research and education in general practice, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. She contributed on elaboration and revision of the manuscript.

• Schools & departments

Writing your PhD: Qualitative Research

This course is intended for PhD students in their final year.

This 7-week course is intended for final year PhD students working on a thesis based on qualitative research, who are in the later stages of their PhD.   In semester 1, this course is only available online. In semester 2 it will be available both in-person and online. Students work on various aspects of what is involved in producing such a thesis, and receive feedback from their tutor on extracts from their writing.

Course Content and Unit Aims

Structure and Introduction

• To explore the features of qualitative research writing.
• To examine ways of structuring a qualitative thesis.
• To consider the content, structure and language of a typical introduction.
• To provide practice in writing an introduction.

The Literature Review

• To discuss the purposes and principles behind a qualitative literature review.
• To explore the typical content and organisation of a literature review.
• To raise awareness of citation practices, including direct quotation, paraphrase, summary, and the use of reporting verbs.
• To provide practice in writing a section of a literature review.

Methodology

• To discuss the content and structure of a qualitative Methodology chapter.
• To explore the use of language in a qualitative Methodology chapter.
• To provide practice in writing the “setting” /”context” section of a Methodology chapter.

Your data chapters

• To discuss the typical elements of a qualitative data chapter.
• To analyse the structure and language of a sample data chapter from a qualitative PhD.
• To explore the language used to express caution when interpreting results.
•  To provide practice in writing a data discussion.

The final chapter

• To discuss the typical components of the final chapter of a qualitative thesis.
• To raise awareness of the kind of language typically used in these elements.
• To practice avoiding repetition in written texts.
• To analyse extracts from final chapters of qualitative theses.
• To provide practice in writing a section of a final chapter.

The first few pages

• To discuss the characteristics of a successful thesis title.
• To analyse sample thesis abstracts, contents pages and acknowledgements.
• To practise writing your abstract and title.

Course Dates

• Online -  Wednesday 11:00 - 12:00 

Teaching Methods and Learning Outcomes

At home, you will listen  to a brief introductory lecture and work through a series of tasks which involve analysing sample extracts from University of Edinburgh doctoral theses; expanding your repertoire of useful academic English expressions; drafting short pieces of writing. You will then write a short assignment. In order to benefit fully from the course, you can expect to spend an additional 2 hours per week of independent study , including the written assignment.

You should send the assignment to your tutor, who will respond with feedback on your writing, including comments on style, the use of sources, organisation, and linguistic accuracy. Your tutor will also meet you for a synchronous online class once per week. All materials are provided. 

You will also have the opportunity for a one-to-one on-line tutorial with your teacher, to discuss any remaining questions you may have.

By the end of the course, you should have a better understanding of:

• ways of structuring the chapters of your thesis.
• appropriate language for the different chapters or sections, and how to use that language accurately
• any specific language areas that you will need to work on further

Eligibility

PhD students in the later stages of their PhD, who are ready to present and discuss their data.

This article was published on 2023-11-23