abstract for qualitative research

• Our History
• The Council
• Verna Wright Prize
• The Secretariat
• Key Documents and Policies
• Past Conferences
• Past Keynote Speakers
• Courses and Lectures
• Co-Hosted Events
• External Events
• Research – Presenting Abstracts
• Research Projects
• Research Links
• Research Councils
• Qualitative Research Abstracts
• Fellowships, Studentships and Awards
• Published Abstracts
• Training Awards
• General Links
• Professional Organisations
• University and Research Vacancies
• Newsletters
• Council Reports and Society Forms
• SRR Membership
• Symposia Presentations
• Members Newsletter
• Business Minutes
• Search for:

GUIDANCE ON SUBMISSION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS

General guidance

Authors should refer to the general information and guidelines contained in the Society’s “Guidance for Submission of Abstracts”. The general guidance therein applies to qualitative research abstracts. This includes the maximum permitted limit of 250 words, and the instruction that abstracts should be structured. In keeping with all submissions to the Society, subsequent presentation must reflect and elaborate on the abstract. Research studies or findings not referred to in the abstract should not be presented.

This document contains specific guidance on the content of qualitative research abstracts.

How guidance on content is to be applied by authors and Council.

Council recognises that the nature of qualitative research makes its comprehensive communication within short abstracts a challenge.  Therefore, whilst the key areas to be included within abstracts are set out below, it is recognised that emphasis on each area will vary in different cases, and that not every listed sub-area will be covered.  Certain elements are likely to receive greater attention at the time of presentation than within the abstract.  In particular, presentation of the paper should include sufficient empirical data to allow judgement of the conclusions drawn.

Content of abstracts

• Research question/objective and design: clear statement of the research question/objective and its relevance. Methodological or theoretical perspectives should be clearly outlined.
• Population and sampling: who the subjects were and what sampling strategies were used .
• Methods of data collection: clear exposition of data collection: access, selection, method of collection, type of data, relationship of researcher to subjects/setting (what data were collected, from where/whom, by whom)
• Quality of data and analysis: strategies to enhance quality of data analysis e.g. triangulation, respondent validation; and to enhance validity e.g. attention to negative cases, consideration of alternative explanations, team analysis, peer review panels
• Application of critical thinking to analysis: attention to the influence of the researcher on data collected and on analysis. Critical approach to the status of data collected
• Theoretical and empirical context: evidence that design and analysis take into account and add to previous knowledge
• Conclusions: justified in relation to data collected, sufficient original data presented to substantiate interpretations, reasoned consideration of transferability  to groups/settings beyond those studied

Username or email address  *

Password  *

Remember me Log in

Lost your password?

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Definition and Purpose of Abstracts

An abstract is a short summary of your (published or unpublished) research paper, usually about a paragraph (c. 6-7 sentences, 150-250 words) long. A well-written abstract serves multiple purposes:

• an abstract lets readers get the gist or essence of your paper or article quickly, in order to decide whether to read the full paper;
• an abstract prepares readers to follow the detailed information, analyses, and arguments in your full paper;
• and, later, an abstract helps readers remember key points from your paper.

It’s also worth remembering that search engines and bibliographic databases use abstracts, as well as the title, to identify key terms for indexing your published paper. So what you include in your abstract and in your title are crucial for helping other researchers find your paper or article.

If you are writing an abstract for a course paper, your professor may give you specific guidelines for what to include and how to organize your abstract. Similarly, academic journals often have specific requirements for abstracts. So in addition to following the advice on this page, you should be sure to look for and follow any guidelines from the course or journal you’re writing for.

The Contents of an Abstract

Abstracts contain most of the following kinds of information in brief form. The body of your paper will, of course, develop and explain these ideas much more fully. As you will see in the samples below, the proportion of your abstract that you devote to each kind of information—and the sequence of that information—will vary, depending on the nature and genre of the paper that you are summarizing in your abstract. And in some cases, some of this information is implied, rather than stated explicitly. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , which is widely used in the social sciences, gives specific guidelines for what to include in the abstract for different kinds of papers—for empirical studies, literature reviews or meta-analyses, theoretical papers, methodological papers, and case studies.

Here are the typical kinds of information found in most abstracts:

• the context or background information for your research; the general topic under study; the specific topic of your research
• the central questions or statement of the problem your research addresses
• what’s already known about this question, what previous research has done or shown
• the main reason(s) , the exigency, the rationale , the goals for your research—Why is it important to address these questions? Are you, for example, examining a new topic? Why is that topic worth examining? Are you filling a gap in previous research? Applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data? Resolving a dispute within the literature in your field? . . .
• your research and/or analytical methods
• your main findings , results , or arguments
• the significance or implications of your findings or arguments.

Your abstract should be intelligible on its own, without a reader’s having to read your entire paper. And in an abstract, you usually do not cite references—most of your abstract will describe what you have studied in your research and what you have found and what you argue in your paper. In the body of your paper, you will cite the specific literature that informs your research.

When to Write Your Abstract

Although you might be tempted to write your abstract first because it will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s a good idea to wait to write your abstract until after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

What follows are some sample abstracts in published papers or articles, all written by faculty at UW-Madison who come from a variety of disciplines. We have annotated these samples to help you see the work that these authors are doing within their abstracts.

Choosing Verb Tenses within Your Abstract

The social science sample (Sample 1) below uses the present tense to describe general facts and interpretations that have been and are currently true, including the prevailing explanation for the social phenomenon under study. That abstract also uses the present tense to describe the methods, the findings, the arguments, and the implications of the findings from their new research study. The authors use the past tense to describe previous research.

The humanities sample (Sample 2) below uses the past tense to describe completed events in the past (the texts created in the pulp fiction industry in the 1970s and 80s) and uses the present tense to describe what is happening in those texts, to explain the significance or meaning of those texts, and to describe the arguments presented in the article.

The science samples (Samples 3 and 4) below use the past tense to describe what previous research studies have done and the research the authors have conducted, the methods they have followed, and what they have found. In their rationale or justification for their research (what remains to be done), they use the present tense. They also use the present tense to introduce their study (in Sample 3, “Here we report . . .”) and to explain the significance of their study (In Sample 3, This reprogramming . . . “provides a scalable cell source for. . .”).

Sample Abstract 1

From the social sciences.

Reporting new findings about the reasons for increasing economic homogamy among spouses

Gonalons-Pons, Pilar, and Christine R. Schwartz. “Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?” Demography , vol. 54, no. 3, 2017, pp. 985-1005.

Sample Abstract 2

From the humanities.

Analyzing underground pulp fiction publications in Tanzania, this article makes an argument about the cultural significance of those publications

Emily Callaci. “Street Textuality: Socialism, Masculinity, and Urban Belonging in Tanzania’s Pulp Fiction Publishing Industry, 1975-1985.” Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 183-210.

Sample Abstract/Summary 3

From the sciences.

Reporting a new method for reprogramming adult mouse fibroblasts into induced cardiac progenitor cells

Lalit, Pratik A., Max R. Salick, Daryl O. Nelson, Jayne M. Squirrell, Christina M. Shafer, Neel G. Patel, Imaan Saeed, Eric G. Schmuck, Yogananda S. Markandeya, Rachel Wong, Martin R. Lea, Kevin W. Eliceiri, Timothy A. Hacker, Wendy C. Crone, Michael Kyba, Daniel J. Garry, Ron Stewart, James A. Thomson, Karen M. Downs, Gary E. Lyons, and Timothy J. Kamp. “Lineage Reprogramming of Fibroblasts into Proliferative Induced Cardiac Progenitor Cells by Defined Factors.” Cell Stem Cell , vol. 18, 2016, pp. 354-367.

Sample Abstract 4, a Structured Abstract

Reporting results about the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis, from a rigorously controlled study

Note: This journal requires authors to organize their abstract into four specific sections, with strict word limits. Because the headings for this structured abstract are self-explanatory, we have chosen not to add annotations to this sample abstract.

Wald, Ellen R., David Nash, and Jens Eickhoff. “Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children.” Pediatrics , vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 9-15.

“OBJECTIVE: The role of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of high-dose amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate in the treatment of children diagnosed with ABS.

METHODS : This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Children 1 to 10 years of age with a clinical presentation compatible with ABS were eligible for participation. Patients were stratified according to age (<6 or ≥6 years) and clinical severity and randomly assigned to receive either amoxicillin (90 mg/kg) with potassium clavulanate (6.4 mg/kg) or placebo. A symptom survey was performed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30. Patients were examined on day 14. Children’s conditions were rated as cured, improved, or failed according to scoring rules.

RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred thirty-five children with respiratory complaints were screened for enrollment; 139 (6.5%) had ABS. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and 56 were randomly assigned. The mean age was 6630 months. Fifty (89%) patients presented with persistent symptoms, and 6 (11%) presented with nonpersistent symptoms. In 24 (43%) children, the illness was classified as mild, whereas in the remaining 32 (57%) children it was severe. Of the 28 children who received the antibiotic, 14 (50%) were cured, 4 (14%) were improved, 4(14%) experienced treatment failure, and 6 (21%) withdrew. Of the 28children who received placebo, 4 (14%) were cured, 5 (18%) improved, and 19 (68%) experienced treatment failure. Children receiving the antibiotic were more likely to be cured (50% vs 14%) and less likely to have treatment failure (14% vs 68%) than children receiving the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS : ABS is a common complication of viral upper respiratory infections. Amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate results in significantly more cures and fewer failures than placebo, according to parental report of time to resolution.” (9)

Some Excellent Advice about Writing Abstracts for Basic Science Research Papers, by Professor Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology at the University of Zurich:

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

📕 Studying HQ

Guide to Qualitative Research Proposal Abstract

Rachel r.n..

• July 20, 2024
• How to Guides

When you’re diving into the world of qualitative research, one of the first hurdles you’ll face is writing a research proposal abstract. This short but crucial piece of writing can make or break your chances of getting your research project approved. But don’t worry – we’re here to break it down for you in simple terms.

An abstract is like a movie trailer for your research proposal. It gives readers a quick peek at what your study is all about, why it matters, and how you plan to do it. In this guide, we’ll walk you through everything you need to know about crafting a top-notch qualitative research proposal abstract.

What You'll Learn

What is a Qualitative Research Proposal Abstract?

A qualitative research proposal abstract is a brief summary of your planned research project. It’s usually around 150-300 words long (though this can vary depending on requirements) and gives readers a clear idea of what your research is about without them having to read the entire proposal.

Think of it as an elevator pitch for your research. If you had just 30 seconds to explain your project to someone, what would you say? That’s essentially what your abstract should cover.

Why is the Abstract Important?

You might be wondering, “Why should I spend so much time on such a short piece of writing?” Well, there are several reasons:

• First Impressions: Your abstract is often the first (and sometimes only) thing people read about your research. It’s your chance to grab their attention and make them want to know more.
• Time-Saver: Many people, especially busy academics or research committee members, use abstracts to quickly decide if they want to read the full proposal.
• Searchability: Abstracts are often used in databases , making it easier for other researchers to find your work.
• Clarity Check: Writing an abstract forces you to boil down your research to its essence, which can help you clarify your own thoughts about the project.

Key Components of a Qualitative Research Proposal Abstract

Now that we understand why abstracts are important, let’s break down what should go into one. A good qualitative research proposal abstract typically includes the following elements:

1. Research Problem or Question

This is where you state what you’re investigating. What’s the issue or question that your research aims to address? For example:

“This study explores how first-generation college students navigate the challenges of higher education.”

2. Purpose of the Study

Here, you explain why you’re doing this research. What do you hope to achieve? For instance:

“The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of the unique experiences and needs of first-generation college students to inform more effective support strategies.”

3. Research Design and Methods

Briefly describe how you plan to conduct your research. What approach are you using? How will you collect data? For example:

“Using a phenomenological approach, this study will conduct in-depth interviews with 20 first-generation college students from diverse backgrounds.”

4. Potential Significance

Explain why your research matters. How might it contribute to your field or benefit society? For instance:

“This research could provide valuable insights for universities to develop more targeted support programs, potentially improving retention rates and academic success among first-generation students.”

5. Keywords (Optional)

Some abstracts include a list of keywords at the end. These are key terms related to your research that can help others find your work in databases. For example:

“Keywords: first-generation students, higher education, student support, qualitative research”

Steps to Write an Effective Qualitative Research Proposal Abstract

Now that we know what goes into an abstract, let’s walk through the process of writing one:

Step 1: Write Your Full Proposal First

It might seem counterintuitive, but it’s often easier to write your abstract after you’ve completed your full research proposal. This way, you have a clear understanding of all aspects of your project.

Step 2: Identify the Key Points

Go through your proposal and highlight the most important points in each section. What’s the core of your research problem? What are the main aspects of your methodology? What are the potential impacts of your study?

Step 3: Draft Your Abstract

Using the key points you’ve identified, start writing your abstract. Remember to include all the key components we discussed earlier.

Step 4: Revise and Refine

Once you have a draft, read it over carefully. Is it clear and concise? Does it accurately represent your research? Make any necessary revisions.

Step 5: Check the Word Count

Make sure your abstract fits within the required word limit. If it’s too long, look for places where you can be more concise without losing important information.

Step 6: Proofread

Finally, carefully proofread your abstract. Check for any grammar or spelling errors, and make sure every word counts.

Example of a Qualitative Research Proposal Abstract

Let’s look at a full example of a qualitative research proposal abstract:

“This study explores the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in rural high schools, focusing on their perceptions of school climate and support systems. Despite increasing acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals in many areas, rural LGBTQ+ youth often face unique challenges that are understudied. Using a grounded theory approach, this research will conduct semi-structured interviews with 15-20 LGBTQ+ high school students from rural areas in the Midwest. The study aims to identify common themes in their experiences, challenges they face, and strategies they use to navigate their school environments. Findings from this research could inform the development of more effective support programs for LGBTQ+ youth in rural schools and contribute to broader discussions about inclusivity in education. By giving voice to this often-overlooked population, this study has the potential to impact educational policies and practices, ultimately working towards creating more supportive school environments for all students.

Keywords: LGBTQ+ youth, rural education, school climate, qualitative research”

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Qualitative Research Proposal Abstracts

Even experienced researchers can sometimes stumble when writing abstracts. Here are some common pitfalls to watch out for:

1. Being Too Vague

Your abstract should be specific about your research. Avoid general statements that could apply to any study in your field.

Bad example: “This study looks at education issues.” Better example: “This study examines the impact of project-based learning on student engagement in middle school science classes.”

2. Including Too Much Detail

While you want to be specific, remember that an abstract is a summary. You don’t need to explain every aspect of your methodology or list all your expected outcomes.

Bad example: “We will conduct interviews on Mondays and Wednesdays from 3-5pm in the school library, asking participants 27 questions about their experiences…” Better example: “Data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with participants in a school setting.”

3. Using Jargon or Technical Language

Remember, your abstract might be read by people outside your specific field. Use clear, straightforward language that a general academic audience can understand.

Bad example: “This study utilizes a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to elucidate the lived experiences of participants.” Better example: “This study uses in-depth interviews to understand participants’ personal experiences and perspectives.”

4. Forgetting to Mention the Significance

Always include why your research matters. What gap in knowledge are you filling? How might your findings be used?

Bad example: “This study looks at teaching methods in elementary schools.” Better example: “This study examines innovative teaching methods in elementary schools, aiming to identify strategies that could improve student learning outcomes and inform teacher training programs.”

5. Not Following Guidelines

Different institutions or publications may have specific requirements for abstracts. Always check and follow the guidelines provided.

6. Failing to Proofread

Typos or grammatical errors in your abstract can make a bad first impression. Always proofread carefully, and consider having someone else review it too.

Tips for Writing a Standout Qualitative Research Proposal Abstract

Now that we’ve covered the basics and common mistakes, here are some tips to take your abstract from good to great:

1. Start Strong

Your first sentence should grab the reader’s attention and clearly state what your research is about. For example:

“In an era of increasing digital connectivity, this study explores how elderly individuals in rural communities experience and adapt to technological changes in healthcare delivery.”

2. Use Active Voice

Active voice makes your writing more direct and engaging. Instead of “The experiences of participants will be examined,” try “We will examine participants’ experiences.”

3. Be Concise

Every word in your abstract should earn its place. Look for places where you can say the same thing in fewer words.

4. Highlight What’s Unique

What makes your research stand out? Is it a new approach to an old problem? A focus on an understudied population? Make sure this comes across in your abstract.

5. End with Impact

Your last sentence should leave a lasting impression. Emphasize the potential significance or applications of your research.

6. Use Keywords Strategically

If you’re including keywords, choose terms that researchers in your field might use when searching for studies like yours.

7. Write for Your Audience

Consider who will be reading your abstract. What information is most important to them? What might pique their interest?

8. Revise, Revise, Revise

Don’t expect to nail it on the first try. Write a draft, step away from it, then come back with fresh eyes to revise.

The Role of Abstracts in Different Contexts

It’s worth noting that the role and format of abstracts can vary depending on the context. Let’s explore a few different scenarios:

Conference Proposals

When submitting a proposal to present at a conference, your abstract might be all the selection committee has to judge your work. In this case, you’ll want to:

• Clearly state the relevance of your research to the conference theme
• Highlight the innovative aspects of your work
• Give a clear indication of what attendees will learn from your presentation

Thesis or Dissertation Proposals

For a thesis or dissertation proposal, your abstract might need to be more comprehensive. You might need to include:

• A brief background on the existing literature
• More detail on your theoretical framework
• An indication of the expected timeline for your research

Grant Applications

When applying for research grants, your abstract needs to convince the funding body that your research is worth investing in. Consider:

• Emphasizing the potential impact of your research
• Clearly stating how the grant money will be used
• Highlighting any innovative methods or approaches you’ll be using

Journal Article Submissions

For journal articles, the abstract often determines whether a reader will choose to read the full article. In this case:

• Ensure your abstract accurately represents the content of your article
• Include key findings or conclusions (which you wouldn’t do in a proposal abstract)
• Follow the specific guidelines provided by the journal

Adapting Your Abstract for Different Audiences

Remember that your abstract might be read by people with varying levels of expertise in your field. Consider creating different versions of your abstract for different audiences:

For Experts in Your Field

• You can use more technical language
• Focus on how your research builds on or challenges existing work in the field
• Emphasize the theoretical or methodological contributions of your study

For a General Academic Audience

• Use more accessible language
• Provide more context for why your research question is important
• Emphasize the broader implications or applications of your work

For Non-Academic Audiences

• Avoid jargon entirely
• Focus on the real-world relevance of your research
• Emphasize potential practical applications or policy implications

The Abstract Writing Process: A Personal Approach

Writing an abstract can be a challenging but rewarding process. Here’s a personal approach you might find helpful:

• Brain Dump: Start by writing down everything you think should go in the abstract, without worrying about word count or organization.
• Organize: Group similar ideas together and start to create a logical flow.
• Prioritize: Identify the most crucial elements that must be included.
• Draft: Write a full draft, aiming to include all the key components we’ve discussed.
• Step Away: Take a break – even a day or two if possible.
• Revise with Fresh Eyes: Come back and read your draft with a critical eye. What’s unclear? What’s unnecessary?
• Get Feedback: Ask a colleague or mentor to read your abstract and provide feedback.
• Final Polish: Make final revisions based on feedback and give it one last proofread.

Remember, writing is a process. Your first draft doesn’t have to be perfect – the important thing is to get your ideas down on paper and then refine them.

Related Articles

How to Critically Appraise a Research Article

How to Write a Comprehensive PhD Research Proposal in Sociology

The qualitative research proposal

Components of a Research Proposal

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

To wrap up our comprehensive guide, let’s address some common questions about qualitative research proposal abstracts:

1. How long should my abstract be?

The length of your abstract can vary depending on the requirements of your institution or the publication you’re submitting to. Typically, abstracts range from 150 to 300 words. Always check the specific guidelines provided.

2. Should I include citations in my abstract?

Generally, abstracts do not include citations. The abstract should focus on your original work. If you must reference a particular study, try to do so without a formal citation.

3. Can I use the first person in my abstract?

This can depend on the norms in your field and the guidelines you’re following. In many cases, it’s acceptable to use first person in qualitative research abstracts. If in doubt, check with your advisor or the submission guidelines.

4. How is a qualitative research abstract different from a quantitative one?

Qualitative research abstracts typically focus more on describing the research problem, methodology, and potential significance, rather than on specific numerical results. They often use words like “explore,” “understand,” or “describe” to indicate the nature of the research.

5. Should I include my research questions in the abstract?

If you have space, including your main research question can be helpful. However, if you’re tight on word count, you can often convey the essence of your research question through your problem statement and purpose.

6. How do I know if my abstract is good enough?

A good abstract clearly conveys the what, why, and how of your research in a concise manner. If someone can understand the essence of your study after reading your abstract, you’re on the right track. Getting feedback from others can also help you assess and improve your abstract.

7. Can I use the same abstract for different purposes (e.g., conference and grant application)?

While the core content might be similar, it’s usually best to tailor your abstract for each specific purpose. A conference abstract might focus more on what attendees will learn, while a grant application abstract might emphasize the potential impact of the research.

8. How much detail should I include about my methodology?

You should include enough information about your methodology for readers to understand your general approach, but not so much that it dominates the abstract. Usually, a sentence or two about your method is sufficient.

9. Is it okay to use acronyms in my abstract?

It’s generally best to avoid acronyms in abstracts unless they are very widely known in your field. If you must use an acronym, spell it out the first time you use it.

10. How different should my abstract be from my introduction?

While your abstract and introduction may cover similar ground, your abstract should be a stand-alone summary of your entire proposal. Your introduction, on the other hand, provides more context and leads into the detailed proposal.

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business Analysis Examples Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Literature Analysis Nursing

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Cookie Policy
• Free College Essay Examples
• Privacy Policy
• Research Paper Writing Service
• Research Proposal Writing Services
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +1 (315)-961-6813

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

Typically replies within minutes

Hey! 👋 Need help with an assignment?

🟢 Online | Privacy policy

WhatsApp us

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Paper Abstract – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Paper Abstract – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Paper Abstract

Research Paper Abstract is a brief summary of a research pape r that describes the study’s purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions . It is often the first section of the paper that readers encounter, and its purpose is to provide a concise and accurate overview of the paper’s content. The typical length of an abstract is usually around 150-250 words, and it should be written in a concise and clear manner.

Research Paper Abstract Structure

The structure of a research paper abstract usually includes the following elements:

• Background or Introduction: Briefly describe the problem or research question that the study addresses.
• Methods : Explain the methodology used to conduct the study, including the participants, materials, and procedures.
• Results : Summarize the main findings of the study, including statistical analyses and key outcomes.
• Conclusions : Discuss the implications of the study’s findings and their significance for the field, as well as any limitations or future directions for research.
• Keywords : List a few keywords that describe the main topics or themes of the research.

How to Write Research Paper Abstract

Here are the steps to follow when writing a research paper abstract:

• Start by reading your paper: Before you write an abstract, you should have a complete understanding of your paper. Read through the paper carefully, making sure you understand the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the key components : Identify the key components of your paper, such as the research question, methods used, results obtained, and conclusion reached.
• Write a draft: Write a draft of your abstract, using concise and clear language. Make sure to include all the important information, but keep it short and to the point. A good rule of thumb is to keep your abstract between 150-250 words.
• Use clear and concise language : Use clear and concise language to explain the purpose of your study, the methods used, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn.
• Emphasize your findings: Emphasize your findings in the abstract, highlighting the key results and the significance of your study.
• Revise and edit: Once you have a draft, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free from errors.
• Check the formatting: Finally, check the formatting of your abstract to make sure it meets the requirements of the journal or conference where you plan to submit it.

Research Paper Abstract Examples

Research Paper Abstract Examples could be following:

Title : “The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Treating Anxiety Disorders: A Meta-Analysis”

Abstract : This meta-analysis examines the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in treating anxiety disorders. Through the analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials, we found that CBT is a highly effective treatment for anxiety disorders, with large effect sizes across a range of anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Our findings support the use of CBT as a first-line treatment for anxiety disorders and highlight the importance of further research to identify the mechanisms underlying its effectiveness.

Title : “Exploring the Role of Parental Involvement in Children’s Education: A Qualitative Study”

Abstract : This qualitative study explores the role of parental involvement in children’s education. Through in-depth interviews with 20 parents of children in elementary school, we found that parental involvement takes many forms, including volunteering in the classroom, helping with homework, and communicating with teachers. We also found that parental involvement is influenced by a range of factors, including parent and child characteristics, school culture, and socio-economic status. Our findings suggest that schools and educators should prioritize building strong partnerships with parents to support children’s academic success.

Title : “The Impact of Exercise on Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

Abstract : This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature on the impact of exercise on cognitive function in older adults. Through the analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials, we found that exercise is associated with significant improvements in cognitive function, particularly in the domains of executive function and attention. Our findings highlight the potential of exercise as a non-pharmacological intervention to support cognitive health in older adults.

When to Write Research Paper Abstract

The abstract of a research paper should typically be written after you have completed the main body of the paper. This is because the abstract is intended to provide a brief summary of the key points and findings of the research, and you can’t do that until you have completed the research and written about it in detail.

Once you have completed your research paper, you can begin writing your abstract. It is important to remember that the abstract should be a concise summary of your research paper, and should be written in a way that is easy to understand for readers who may not have expertise in your specific area of research.

Purpose of Research Paper Abstract

The purpose of a research paper abstract is to provide a concise summary of the key points and findings of a research paper. It is typically a brief paragraph or two that appears at the beginning of the paper, before the introduction, and is intended to give readers a quick overview of the paper’s content.

The abstract should include a brief statement of the research problem, the methods used to investigate the problem, the key results and findings, and the main conclusions and implications of the research. It should be written in a clear and concise manner, avoiding jargon and technical language, and should be understandable to a broad audience.

The abstract serves as a way to quickly and easily communicate the main points of a research paper to potential readers, such as academics, researchers, and students, who may be looking for information on a particular topic. It can also help researchers determine whether a paper is relevant to their own research interests and whether they should read the full paper.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Abstract Writing: A Step-by-Step Guide With Tips & Examples

Table of Contents

Introduction

Abstracts of research papers have always played an essential role in describing your research concisely and clearly to researchers and editors of journals, enticing them to continue reading. However, with the widespread availability of scientific databases, the need to write a convincing abstract is more crucial now than during the time of paper-bound manuscripts.

Abstracts serve to "sell" your research and can be compared with your "executive outline" of a resume or, rather, a formal summary of the critical aspects of your work. Also, it can be the "gist" of your study. Since most educational research is done online, it's a sign that you have a shorter time for impressing your readers, and have more competition from other abstracts that are available to be read.

The APCI (Academic Publishing and Conferences International) articulates 12 issues or points considered during the final approval process for conferences & journals and emphasises the importance of writing an abstract that checks all these boxes (12 points). Since it's the only opportunity you have to captivate your readers, you must invest time and effort in creating an abstract that accurately reflects the critical points of your research.

With that in mind, let’s head over to understand and discover the core concept and guidelines to create a substantial abstract. Also, learn how to organise the ideas or plots into an effective abstract that will be awe-inspiring to the readers you want to reach.

What is Abstract? Definition and Overview

The word "Abstract' is derived from Latin abstractus meaning "drawn off." This etymological meaning also applies to art movements as well as music, like abstract expressionism. In this context, it refers to the revealing of the artist's intention.

Based on this, you can determine the meaning of an abstract: A condensed research summary. It must be self-contained and independent of the body of the research. However, it should outline the subject, the strategies used to study the problem, and the methods implemented to attain the outcomes. The specific elements of the study differ based on the area of study; however, together, it must be a succinct summary of the entire research paper.

Abstracts are typically written at the end of the paper, even though it serves as a prologue. In general, the abstract must be in a position to:

• Describe the paper.
• Identify the problem or the issue at hand.
• Explain to the reader the research process, the results you came up with, and what conclusion you've reached using these results.
• Include keywords to guide your strategy and the content.

Furthermore, the abstract you submit should not reflect upon any of  the following elements:

• Examine, analyse or defend the paper or your opinion.
• What you want to study, achieve or discover.
• Be redundant or irrelevant.

After reading an abstract, your audience should understand the reason - what the research was about in the first place, what the study has revealed and how it can be utilised or can be used to benefit others. You can understand the importance of abstract by knowing the fact that the abstract is the most frequently read portion of any research paper. In simpler terms, it should contain all the main points of the research paper.

What is the Purpose of an Abstract?

Abstracts are typically an essential requirement for research papers; however, it's not an obligation to preserve traditional reasons without any purpose. Abstracts allow readers to scan the text to determine whether it is relevant to their research or studies. The abstract allows other researchers to decide if your research paper can provide them with some additional information. A good abstract paves the interest of the audience to pore through your entire paper to find the content or context they're searching for.

Abstract writing is essential for indexing, as well. The Digital Repository of academic papers makes use of abstracts to index the entire content of academic research papers. Like meta descriptions in the regular Google outcomes, abstracts must include keywords that help researchers locate what they seek.

Types of Abstract

Informative and Descriptive are two kinds of abstracts often used in scientific writing.

A descriptive abstract gives readers an outline of the author's main points in their study. The reader can determine if they want to stick to the research work, based on their interest in the topic. An abstract that is descriptive is similar to the contents table of books, however, the format of an abstract depicts complete sentences encapsulated in one paragraph. It is unfortunate that the abstract can't be used as a substitute for reading a piece of writing because it's just an overview, which omits readers from getting an entire view. Also, it cannot be a way to fill in the gaps the reader may have after reading this kind of abstract since it does not contain crucial information needed to evaluate the article.

To conclude, a descriptive abstract is:

• A simple summary of the task, just summarises the work, but some researchers think it is much more of an outline
• Typically, the length is approximately 100 words. It is too short when compared to an informative abstract.
• A brief explanation but doesn't provide the reader with the complete information they need;
• An overview that omits conclusions and results

An informative abstract is a comprehensive outline of the research. There are times when people rely on the abstract as an information source. And the reason is why it is crucial to provide entire data of particular research. A well-written, informative abstract could be a good substitute for the remainder of the paper on its own.

A well-written abstract typically follows a particular style. The author begins by providing the identifying information, backed by citations and other identifiers of the papers. Then, the major elements are summarised to make the reader aware of the study. It is followed by the methodology and all-important findings from the study. The conclusion then presents study results and ends the abstract with a comprehensive summary.

In a nutshell, an informative abstract:

• Has a length that can vary, based on the subject, but is not longer than 300 words.
• Contains all the content-like methods and intentions
• Offers evidence and possible recommendations.

Informative Abstracts are more frequent than descriptive abstracts because of their extensive content and linkage to the topic specifically. You should select different types of abstracts to papers based on their length: informative abstracts for extended and more complex abstracts and descriptive ones for simpler and shorter research papers.

What are the Characteristics of a Good Abstract?

• A good abstract clearly defines the goals and purposes of the study.
• It should clearly describe the research methodology with a primary focus on data gathering, processing, and subsequent analysis.
• A good abstract should provide specific research findings.
• It presents the principal conclusions of the systematic study.
• It should be concise, clear, and relevant to the field of study.
• A well-designed abstract should be unifying and coherent.
• It is easy to grasp and free of technical jargon.
• It is written impartially and objectively.

What are the various sections of an ideal Abstract?

By now, you must have gained some concrete idea of the essential elements that your abstract needs to convey . Accordingly, the information is broken down into six key sections of the abstract, which include:

An Introduction or Background

Research methodology, objectives and goals, limitations.

Let's go over them in detail.

The introduction, also known as background, is the most concise part of your abstract. Ideally, it comprises a couple of sentences. Some researchers only write one sentence to introduce their abstract. The idea behind this is to guide readers through the key factors that led to your study.

It's understandable that this information might seem difficult to explain in a couple of sentences. For example, think about the following two questions like the background of your study:

• What is currently available about the subject with respect to the paper being discussed?
• What isn't understood about this issue? (This is the subject of your research)

While writing the abstract’s introduction, make sure that it is not lengthy. Because if it crosses the word limit, it may eat up the words meant to be used for providing other key information.

Research methodology is where you describe the theories and techniques you used in your research. It is recommended that you describe what you have done and the method you used to get your thorough investigation results. Certainly, it is the second-longest paragraph in the abstract.

In the research methodology section, it is essential to mention the kind of research you conducted; for instance, qualitative research or quantitative research (this will guide your research methodology too) . If you've conducted quantitative research, your abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection method, sampling techniques, and duration of the study. Likewise, your abstract should reflect observational data, opinions, questionnaires (especially the non-numerical data) if you work on qualitative research.

The research objectives and goals speak about what you intend to accomplish with your research. The majority of research projects focus on the long-term effects of a project, and the goals focus on the immediate, short-term outcomes of the research. It is possible to summarise both in just multiple sentences.

In stating your objectives and goals, you give readers a picture of the scope of the study, its depth and the direction your research ultimately follows. Your readers can evaluate the results of your research against the goals and stated objectives to determine if you have achieved the goal of your research.

In the end, your readers are more attracted by the results you've obtained through your study. Therefore, you must take the time to explain each relevant result and explain how they impact your research. The results section exists as the longest in your abstract, and nothing should diminish its reach or quality.

One of the most important things you should adhere to is to spell out details and figures on the results of your research.

Instead of making a vague assertion such as, "We noticed that response rates varied greatly between respondents with high incomes and those with low incomes", Try these: "The response rate was higher for high-income respondents than those with lower incomes (59 30 percent vs. 30 percent in both cases; P<0.01)."

You're likely to encounter certain obstacles during your research. It could have been during data collection or even during conducting the sample . Whatever the issue, it's essential to inform your readers about them and their effects on the research.

Research limitations offer an opportunity to suggest further and deep research. If, for instance, you were forced to change for convenient sampling and snowball samples because of difficulties in reaching well-suited research participants, then you should mention this reason when you write your research abstract. In addition, a lack of prior studies on the subject could hinder your research.

Your conclusion should include the same number of sentences to wrap the abstract as the introduction. The majority of researchers offer an idea of the consequences of their research in this case.

Your conclusion should include three essential components:

• A significant take-home message.
• Corresponding important findings.
• The Interpretation.

Even though the conclusion of your abstract needs to be brief, it can have an enormous influence on the way that readers view your research. Therefore, make use of this section to reinforce the central message from your research. Be sure that your statements reflect the actual results and the methods you used to conduct your research.

Good Abstract Examples

Abstract example #1.

Children’s consumption behavior in response to food product placements in movies.

The abstract:

"Almost all research into the effects of brand placements on children has focused on the brand's attitudes or behavior intentions. Based on the significant differences between attitudes and behavioral intentions on one hand and actual behavior on the other hand, this study examines the impact of placements by brands on children's eating habits. Children aged 6-14 years old were shown an excerpt from the popular film Alvin and the Chipmunks and were shown places for the item Cheese Balls. Three different versions were developed with no placements, one with moderately frequent placements and the third with the highest frequency of placement. The results revealed that exposure to high-frequency places had a profound effect on snack consumption, however, there was no impact on consumer attitudes towards brands or products. The effects were not dependent on the age of the children. These findings are of major importance to researchers studying consumer behavior as well as nutrition experts as well as policy regulators."

Abstract Example #2

Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. The abstract:

"The research conducted in this study investigated the effects of Facebook use on women's moods and body image if the effects are different from an internet-based fashion journal and if the appearance comparison tendencies moderate one or more of these effects. Participants who were female ( N = 112) were randomly allocated to spend 10 minutes exploring their Facebook account or a magazine's website or an appearance neutral control website prior to completing state assessments of body dissatisfaction, mood, and differences in appearance (weight-related and facial hair, face, and skin). Participants also completed a test of the tendency to compare appearances. The participants who used Facebook were reported to be more depressed than those who stayed on the control site. In addition, women who have the tendency to compare appearances reported more facial, hair and skin-related issues following Facebook exposure than when they were exposed to the control site. Due to its popularity it is imperative to conduct more research to understand the effect that Facebook affects the way people view themselves."

Abstract Example #3

The Relationship Between Cell Phone Use and Academic Performance in a Sample of U.S. College Students

"The cellphone is always present on campuses of colleges and is often utilised in situations in which learning takes place. The study examined the connection between the use of cell phones and the actual grades point average (GPA) after adjusting for predictors that are known to be a factor. In the end 536 students in the undergraduate program from 82 self-reported majors of an enormous, public institution were studied. Hierarchical analysis ( R 2 = .449) showed that use of mobile phones is significantly ( p < .001) and negative (b equal to -.164) connected to the actual college GPA, after taking into account factors such as demographics, self-efficacy in self-regulated learning, self-efficacy to improve academic performance, and the actual high school GPA that were all important predictors ( p < .05). Therefore, after adjusting for other known predictors increasing cell phone usage was associated with lower academic performance. While more research is required to determine the mechanisms behind these results, they suggest the need to educate teachers and students to the possible academic risks that are associated with high-frequency mobile phone usage."

Quick tips on writing a good abstract

There exists a common dilemma among early age researchers whether to write the abstract at first or last? However, it's recommended to compose your abstract when you've completed the research since you'll have all the information to give to your readers. You can, however, write a draft at the beginning of your research and add in any gaps later.

If you find abstract writing a herculean task, here are the few tips to help you with it:

1. Always develop a framework to support your abstract

Before writing, ensure you create a clear outline for your abstract. Divide it into sections and draw the primary and supporting elements in each one. You can include keywords and a few sentences that convey the essence of your message.

2. Review Other Abstracts

Abstracts are among the most frequently used research documents, and thousands of them were written in the past. Therefore, prior to writing yours, take a look at some examples from other abstracts. There are plenty of examples of abstracts for dissertations in the dissertation and thesis databases.

3. Avoid Jargon To the Maximum

When you write your abstract, focus on simplicity over formality. You should  write in simple language, and avoid excessive filler words or ambiguous sentences. Keep in mind that your abstract must be readable to those who aren't acquainted with your subject.

4. Focus on Your Research

It's a given fact that the abstract you write should be about your research and the findings you've made. It is not the right time to mention secondary and primary data sources unless it's absolutely required.

Conclusion: How to Structure an Interesting Abstract?

Abstracts are a short outline of your essay. However, it's among the most important, if not the most important. The process of writing an abstract is not straightforward. A few early-age researchers tend to begin by writing it, thinking they are doing it to "tease" the next step (the document itself). However, it is better to treat it as a spoiler.

The simple, concise style of the abstract lends itself to a well-written and well-investigated study. If your research paper doesn't provide definitive results, or the goal of your research is questioned, so will the abstract. Thus, only write your abstract after witnessing your findings and put your findings in the context of a larger scenario.

The process of writing an abstract can be daunting, but with these guidelines, you will succeed. The most efficient method of writing an excellent abstract is to centre the primary points of your abstract, including the research question and goals methods, as well as key results.

Interested in learning more about dedicated research solutions? Go to the SciSpace product page to find out how our suite of products can help you simplify your research workflows so you can focus on advancing science.

The best-in-class solution is equipped with features such as literature search and discovery, profile management, research writing and formatting, and so much more.

But before you go,

You might also like.

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

In many ways, an abstract is like a trailer of a movie or the synopsis of your favorite book. Its job is to whet the reader’s appetite by sharing important information about your work. After reading a well-written abstract, one should have enough interest to explore the full research thesis. 

So how do you write an interesting abstract that captures the core of your study? First, you need to understand your research objectives and match them with the key results of your study. In this article, we will share some tips for writing an effective abstract, plus samples you can learn from. 

What is an Abstract in Research Writing?

In simple terms, an abstract is a concise write-up that gives an overview of your systematic investigation. According to Grammarly, it is a self-contained summary of a larger work, and it serves as a preview of the bigger document. 

It usually appears at the beginning of your thesis or research paper and helps the reader to have an overview of your work without going into great detail. This means that when someone reads your abstract, it should give them a clear idea of the purpose of your systematic investigation, your problem statement, key results, and any gaps requiring further investigation. 

So how long should your abstract be to capture all of these details? The reality is you don’t need a lot of words to capture key pieces of information in your abstract. Typically, 6–7 sentences made up of 150–250 words should be just right. 

Read: Writing Research Proposals: Tips, Examples & Mistakes

What are the Characteristics of a Good Abstract? 

• A good abstract clearly states the aims and objectives of the research.
• It outlines the research methodology for data gathering , processing and analysis. 
• A good abstract summarizes specific research results.
• It states the key conclusions of the systematic investigation.
• It is brief yet straight to the point. 
• A good abstract is unified and coherent. 
• It is easy to understand and devoid of technical jargon. 
• It is written in an unbiased and objective manner. 

What is the Purpose of an Abstract? 

Every abstract has two major purposes. First, it communicates the relevance of your systematic investigation to readers. After reading your abstract, people can determine how relevant your study is to their primary or secondary research purpose. 

The second purpose of an abstract is to communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper. Research papers typically run into tens of pages so it takes time to read and digest them. To help readers grasp the core ideas in a systematic investigation, it pays to have a well-written abstract that outlines important information concerning your study. 

In all, your abstract should accurately outline the most important information in your research. Many times, it determines whether people would go ahead to read your dissertation. Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your thesis easily findable.

Learn About: How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

What are the Sections of an Abstract?

You already know the key pieces of information that your abstract should communicate. These details are broken into six important sections of the abstract which are: 

• The Introduction or Background
• Research Methodology
• Aims and Objectives 
• Limitations

Let’s discuss them in detail. 

• The Introduction or Background 

The introduction or background is the shortest part of your abstract and usually consists of 2–3 sentences. In fact, some researchers write a single sentence as the introduction of their abstract. The whole idea here is to take the reader through the important events leading to your research. 

Understandably, this information may appear difficult to convey in a few sentences. To help out, consider answering these two questions in the background to your study : 

• What is already known about the subject, related to the paper in question? 
• What is not known about the subject (this is the focus of your study)? 

As much as possible, ensure that your abstract’s introduction doesn’t eat into the word count for the other key information. 

• Research Methodology 

This is the section where you spell out any theories and methods adopted for your study. Ideally, you should cover what has been done and how you went about it to achieve the results of your systematic investigation. It is usually the second-longest section in the abstract. 

In the research methodology section, you should also state the type of research you embarked on; that is, qualitative research or quantitative research —this will inform your research methods too. If you’ve conducted quantitative research, your abstract should contain information like the sample size, data collection methods , sampling technique, and duration of your experiment. 

Explore: 21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2021

In the end, readers are most interested in the results you’ve achieved with your study. This means you should take time to outline every relevant outcome and show how they affect your research population . Typically, the results section should be the longest one in your abstract and nothing should compromise its range and quality. 

An important thing you should do here is spelled out facts and figures about research outcomes. Instead of a vague statement like, “we noticed that response rates differed greatly between high-income and low-income respondents”, try this: “The response rate was higher in high-income respondents than in their low-income counterparts (59% vs 30%, respectively; P

• Conclusion 

Like the introduction, your conclusion should contain a few sentences that wrap up your abstract. Most researchers express a theoretical opinion about the implications of their study, here. 

Your conclusion should contain three important elements: 

• The primary take-home message
• The additional findings of importance
• The perspective 

Although the conclusion of your abstract should be short, it has a great impact on how readers perceive your study. So, take advantage of this section to reiterate the core message in your systematic investigation. Also, make sure any statements here reflect the true outcomes and methods of your research. 

• Limitations 

Chances are you must have faced certain challenges in the course of your research—it could be at the data collection phase or during sampling . Whatever these challenges are, it pays to let your readers know about them, and the impact they had on your study. 

For example, if you had to switch to convenience sampling or snowball sampling due to difficulties in contacting well-suited research participants, you should include this in your abstract. Also, a lack of previous studies in the research area could pose a limitation on your study. Research limitations provide an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. 

Research aims and objectives speak to what you want to achieve with your study. Typically, research aims focus on a project’s long-term outcomes while the objectives focus on the immediate, short-term outcome of the investigation. You may summarize both using a single paragraph comprising a few sentences.

Stating your aims and objectives will give readers a clear idea of the scope, depth, and direction that your research will ultimately take. Readers would measure your research outcomes against stated aims and objectives to know if you achieved the purpose of your study. 

Use For Free: Research Form Templates

Abstract Writing Styles and General Guidelines 

Now that you know the different sections plus information that your abstract should contain, let’s look at how to write an abstract for your research paper.

A common question that comes up is, should I write my abstract first or last? It’s best to write your abstract after you’ve finished working on the research because you have full information to present to your readers. However, you can always create a draft at the beginning of your systematic investigation and fill in the gaps later.  

Does writing an abstract seem like a herculean task? Here are a few tips to help out. 

1. Always create a framework for your abstract 

Before you start writing, take time to develop a detailed outline for your abstract. Break it into sections and sketch the main and supporting points for each section. You can list keywords plus 1–2 sentences that capture your core messaging. 

2. Read Other Abstracts 

Abstracts are one of the most common research documents, and thousands of them have been written in time past. So, before writing yours, try to study a couple of samples from others. You can find lots of dissertation abstract examples in thesis and dissertation databases.

3. Steer Clear of Jargon As Much As Possible 

While writing your abstract, emphasize clarity over style. This means you should communicate in simple terms and avoid unnecessary filler words and ambiguous sentences. Remember, your abstract should be understandable to readers who are not familiar with your topic. 

4. Focus on Your Research

It goes without saying that your abstract should be solely focused on your research and what you’ve discovered. It’s not the time to cite primary and secondary data sources unless this is absolutely necessary. 

This doesn’t mean you should ignore the scholarly background of your work. You might include a sentence or two summarizing the scholarly background to show the relevance of your work to a broader debate, but there’s no need to mention specific publications. 

Going further, here are some abstract writing guidelines from the University of Bergen: 

• An abstract briefly explains the salient aspects of the content. 
• Abstracts should be accurate and succinct, self-contained, and readable.  
• The abstract should paraphrase and summarise rather than quote from the paper.
• Abstracts should relate only to the paper to be presented/assessed.

Types of Abstracts with Examples 

According to the University of Adelaide, there are two major types of abstracts written for research purposes. First, we have informative abstracts and descriptive abstracts. 

1. Informative Abstract  

An informative abstract is the more common type of abstract written for academic research. It highlights the most important aspects of your systematic investigation without going into unnecessary or irrelevant details that the reader might not find useful. 

The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is rarely more than 10% of the length of the entire work. In the case of longer work, it may be much less.

In any informative abstract, you’d touch on information like the purpose, method, scope, results, and conclusion of your study. By now, you’re thinking, “this is the type of abstract we’ve been discussing all along”, and you wouldn’t be far from the truth. 

Advantages of Informative Abstracts

• These abstracts save time for both the researcher and the readers. 
• It’s easy to refer to these abstracts as secondary research sources. 

Disadvantages of Informative Abstracts

• These types of abstracts lack personality.

Example of an Informative Abstract

• Sample Informative Abstract Based on Experimental Work From Colorado State University
• Sample Informative Abstract Based on Non-experimental Work From Colorado State University

2. Descriptive Abstract 

A descriptive abstract reads like a synopsis and focuses on enticing the reader with interesting information. They don’t care as much for data and details, and instead read more like overviews that don’t give too much away. 

You’d find descriptive abstracts in artistic criticism pieces and entertainment research as opposed to scientific investigations. This type of abstract makes no judgments about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. They are usually written in 100 words or less. 

Advantages of Descriptive Abstracts

• It gives a very brief overview of the research paper. 
• It is easier to write descriptive abstracts compared to informational abstracts. 

Disadvantages of Descriptive Abstracts

• They are suitable for scientific research. 
• Descriptive abstracts might omit relevant information that deepens your knowledge of the systematic investigation.

Example of Descriptive Abstracts 

• Sample Descriptive Abstract From Colorado State University

FAQs About Writing Abstracts in Research Papers

1. How Long Should an Abstract Be?

A typical abstract should be about six sentences long or less than 150 words. Most universities have specific word count requirements that fall within 150–300 words. 

2. How Do You Start an Abstract Sentence?

There are several ways to start your abstract. Consider the following methods: 

• State a problem or uncertainty
• Make a general statement with the present research action.
• State the purpose or objective of your research
• State a real-world phenomena or a standard practice.

3. Should you cite in an abstract?

While you can refer to information from specific research papers, there’s no need to cite sources in your abstract. Your abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others. 

4. What should not be included in an abstract?

An abstract shouldn’t have numeric references, bibliographies, sections, or even footnotes. 

5. Which tense is used in writing an abstract?

An abstract should be written in the third-person present tense. Use the simple past tense when describing your methodology and specific findings from your study. 

Writing an abstract might appear challenging but with these steps, you should get it right. The easiest approach to writing a good abstract is centering it on key information including your research problem and objectives, methodology, and key results.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• abstract in research papers
• abstract writing
• descriptive abstract
• good abstract
• purpose of abstract
• qualitative research
• quantitative research
• research methodology
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

15 Reasons to Choose Quantitative over Qualitative Research

This guide tells you everything you need to know about qualitative and quantitative research, it differences,types, when to use it, how...

Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

A comprehensive guide on the definition of research questions, types, importance, good and bad research question examples

How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

Learn how to write problem statements before commencing any research effort. Learn about its structure and explore examples

Extrapolation in Statistical Research: Definition, Examples, Types, Applications

In this article we’ll look at the different types and characteristics of extrapolation, plus how it contrasts to interpolation.

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Qualitative research design (JARS–Qual)

JARS–Qual, developed in 2018, mark the first time APA Style has included qualitative standards. They outline what should be reported in qualitative research manuscripts to make the review process easier.

The seventh edition of the Publication Manual also includes content on qualitative studies, including standards for journal article reporting, considerations for sharing qualitative data, and a description of case studies as a type of qualitative article.

JARS–Qual include guidance for manuscripts that report

• Primary qualitative research
• Qualitative meta-analyses
• Qualitative Design Reporting Standards (JARS-Qual) (PDF, 141KB) Information recommended for inclusion in manuscripts that report primary qualitative research
• Qualitative Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (PDF, 119KB) Information recommended for inclusion in manuscripts that report qualitative meta-analyses

For more information on how these standards were created, read Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology .

• Quantitative design standards
• Mixed methods standards
• Race, Ethnicity, and Culture standards

Return to Journal Article Reporting Standards homepage

Jars resources

• History of APA’s journal article reporting standards
• APA Style JARS supplemental glossary
• Supplemental resource on the ethic of transparency in JARS
• Frequently asked questions
• JARS-Quant Decision Flowchart (PDF, 98KB)
• JARS-Quant Participant Flowchart (PDF, 98KB)

Jars articles

• Jars –Quant article
• Jars –Qual / Mixed article
• Jars – rec executive summary

Questions / feedback

Email an APA Style Expert if you have questions, feedback, or suggestions for modules to be included in future JARS updates.

APA resources

• APA Databases and Electronic Resources
• APA Journals
• Journal Author Resource Center
• Education and Career
• Psychological Science
• Open Science at APA
• How to Review a Manuscript

Qualitative research methods in drug abuse and AIDS prevention research: an overview

• Population and Public Health Sciences

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

• Medicine (miscellaneous)
• qualitative research methods
• AIDS prevention

Disciplines

• Immune System Diseases
• Preventive Medicine
• Substance Abuse and Addiction
• Virus Diseases

Access to Document

• 157 Final published version, 656 KB

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

T1 - Qualitative research methods in drug abuse and AIDS prevention research

T2 - an overview

AU - Carlson, Robert G.

AU - Siegal, Harvey A.

AU - Falck, Russel S.

N2 - Almost two decades ago, at the first workshop/technical review on qualitative research methods and ethnography sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Siegal (1977, p. 79) remarked that despite the existence of numerous excellent qualitative studies on drug abuse, “Ethnographers have had difficulty explaining precisely what they do.” In the intervening years, qualitative research methods have gained increasing importance as a systematic means of data collection and analysis that have become critical dimensions in drug abuse and AIDS research (Lambert 1990). For example, qualitative and ethnographic research are key components in NIDA’s recent program announcement, “Strategies to Reduce HIV Sexual Risk Practices in Drug Users.” Moreover, through the National AIDS Demonstration Research Program (Brown and Beschner 1993) and the Cooperative Agreement for AIDS Community-Based Outreach/Intervention research initiative, qualitative methodologists, or ethnographers. have worked increasingly on research teams composed of epidemiologists, statisticians, health educators, and psychologists, thereby promoting interdisciplinary cooperation. The recent publication of Denzin and Lincoln’s (1994a) compendium, “Handbook of Qualitative Research,” emphasizes this momentum toward interdisciplinary understanding.

AB - Almost two decades ago, at the first workshop/technical review on qualitative research methods and ethnography sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Siegal (1977, p. 79) remarked that despite the existence of numerous excellent qualitative studies on drug abuse, “Ethnographers have had difficulty explaining precisely what they do.” In the intervening years, qualitative research methods have gained increasing importance as a systematic means of data collection and analysis that have become critical dimensions in drug abuse and AIDS research (Lambert 1990). For example, qualitative and ethnographic research are key components in NIDA’s recent program announcement, “Strategies to Reduce HIV Sexual Risk Practices in Drug Users.” Moreover, through the National AIDS Demonstration Research Program (Brown and Beschner 1993) and the Cooperative Agreement for AIDS Community-Based Outreach/Intervention research initiative, qualitative methodologists, or ethnographers. have worked increasingly on research teams composed of epidemiologists, statisticians, health educators, and psychologists, thereby promoting interdisciplinary cooperation. The recent publication of Denzin and Lincoln’s (1994a) compendium, “Handbook of Qualitative Research,” emphasizes this momentum toward interdisciplinary understanding.

KW - qualitative research methods

KW - drug abuse

KW - AIDS prevention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029449489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029449489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 8684442

SN - 1046-9516

JO - NIDA Research Monograph Series

JF - NIDA Research Monograph Series

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2019
• Volume 42 , pages 139–160, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
• Ugo Corte 3  

623k Accesses

331 Citations

24 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Research

Unsettling definitions of qualitative research, what is “qualitative” in qualitative research why the answer does not matter but the question is important, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.

Google Scholar  

Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.

Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.

Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .

Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.

Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.

Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.

Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.

Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2007. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30 (3): 287–305.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.

Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.

James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.

Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.

Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.

Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .

Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.

Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.

Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.

McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.

Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf

Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).

Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.

Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.

Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.

Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.

Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.

Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.

Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.

Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.

Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.

Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Patrik Aspers

Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Download citation

Published : 27 February 2019

Issue Date : 01 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Epistemology
• Philosophy of science
• Phenomenology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Methodology
• Research Methodology
• Qualitative Research

What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines

• Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ)
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

• Mina Seraj-Aksit

• J Consum Behav

• Margaret M. Cullen

• Rossella Gambetti

• Luisella Bovera

• Qual Res Psychol

• Weng Marc Lim

• Karyn Cooper
• Gaurav Gupta

• Bronislaw Malinowski
• QUAL HEALTH RES
• Wendy Duggleby

• Edward F. Fern
• J BUS IND MARK

• Kathy Charmaz
• INT J MANAG REV
• Malvina Klag
• Ann Langley
• Roy Suddaby
• INT J INTERCULT REL
• Yvonna S. Lincoln
• Anselm L. Strauss
• Int J Retail Distrib Manag

• J SOC ISSUES
• Egon G. Guba
• LANDSCAPE URBAN PLAN

• Susan Spiggle
• L Cavusoglu
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

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
• PMC11111043

Innovation and adaptation: The rise of a fentanyl smoking culture in San Francisco

Daniel ciccarone.

1 Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America

Nicole Holm

Jeff ondocsin, allison schlosser.

2 Sociology and Anthropology Department, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States of America

Jason Fessel

Amanda cowan.

3 Community Health Project Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America

Sarah G. Mars

Associated data.

Due to the sensitive nature of the research—e.g. potential legal action against participants for sharing information about illegal activity, and harm to members of the research team for divulging such information—the University of California, San Francisco Human Research Protection Program (IRB) has limited access to this data only to approved study personnel. The data are further protected by a federal Certificate of Confidentiality issued by the National Institutes of Health. While the transcripts are de-identified, participants did not consent to making their data available to those outside of the research team and the detailed experiences shared may plausibly allow for participant identification. Researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data may send requests for consideration to the Human Research Protection Program (IRB) at the University of California, San Francisco at 415-476-1814 or ude.fscu@BRI .

Illicitly manufactured fentanyls and stimulants are implicated in the escalating US mortality from drug overdose. San Francisco, California (SF) has seen declining fentanyl injection while smoking has increased. Beliefs and behaviors surrounding this development are not well understood.

The study used rapid ethnography to explore fentanyl and methamphetamine use in SF. The team conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 34) with participants recruited from syringe service programs. Video-recorded smoking sequences (n = 12), photography and daily field notes supplemented interview data.

Difficulty injecting and fear of overdose motivated transitions from injecting to smoking. Fentanyl was extremely cheap—$10/gram—with variability in quality. Foil was the most commonly used smoking material but glass bubbles, bongs and dabbing devices were also popular. No reliable visible methods for determining fentanyl quality existed, however, participants could gauge potency upon inhalation, and developed techniques to regulate dosage. Several participants reported at least hourly use, some reporting one or more grams of daily fentanyl consumption. Smoking was also very social, with people sharing equipment, drugs and information. Participants raised concerns about hygiene and overdose risk to others arising from shared equipment. Reportedly potent fentanyl ‘residue’ accumulated on smoking materials and was commonly shared/traded/stolen or consumed accidentally with diverse preferences for its use.

Our data highlight fentanyl residue as a new overdose risk with potential mismatch between the potency of the residual drug and the recipient’s tolerance. Further, large doses of fentanyl are being consumed (estimated at approximately 50 mg of pure fentanyl/day). Smoking fentanyl has potential health benefits over injecting and may be protective against overdose, but substantial uncertainty exists. However, SF overdose mortality hit a record high in 2023. Recommendations to reduce fentanyl smoking overdose risks through pacing, greater awareness of dosages consumed and checking tolerance of residue recipients are potentially viable interventions deserving further exploration.

Introduction

There have been significant changes and innovations in the ways in which fentanyl is consumed by people who use opioids (PWUO) in the United States (US), specifically a widespread shift to fentanyl smoking on the West Coast, beginning at least by 2018 [ 1 , 2 ]. The early portion of the US’s current rise of illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) was largely limited to the Northeast and Midwest Regions, with some increases in the South [ 3 , 4 ], but by 2018, the West was experiencing the highest relative changes in overdose rate due to its presence [ 5 ]. Geographic differences in drug distribution are well documented in the US, with longstanding divides demarcated by the Mississippi River and historical domination by specific drug trafficking organizations, with little response to consumer demand [ 6 ]. These divisions are influenced by both high-level drug trafficking and local market-based factors that may play a role in determining the level of fentanyl penetration of the US heroin supply [ 7 , 8 ]. Fentanyl dominance of the US opioid market may also be seen in the growing variety of forms and products in which fentanyl is found, including in many counterfeit prescription medications [ 9 ].

Overdose deaths related to IMF have made up an increasingly large percentage of overdose mortality in the US since 2013 [ 3 , 10 ]. This constitutes the third wave of overdose deaths, building on rising prescription opioid overdoses in the early 2000s and a marked increase in heroin overdose deaths from 2007 [ 11 ]. More recently, combinations of IMF and stimulant-type drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine have characterized a fourth wave of overdose deaths [ 12 ]. Recently, this has also extended to a shift from a predominant US culture of opioid injection to fentanyl smoking in cities like San Francisco, California [ 1 ].

A brief history of opiate smoking is warranted to understand better modern trends and transitions in substance use. Although opium had been available in China since approximately the 8 th century, its smoking has only been practiced since the 17 th century—linked to the spread in previous centuries of the practice of tobacco smoking [ 13 ]—and accelerated across social classes through the British opium trade in the first half of the 19 th century [ 13 , 14 ]. In the US, smoking opium was initially restricted to Chinatown settlements in the West until 1870, when a new class of ‘underworld’ white opium smokers began to emerge, engaging in what Courtwright describes as a “social vice, a way of relaxing and indulging with friends” [ 14 ]. The argot of the time emphasized this social nature, as well as extolling those individuals who excelled at the practice of smoking, traits which continue into the 20 th and 21 st centuries among people who use drugs [ 14 ]. While early US efforts to curtail opium smoking were largely unsuccessful, later federal legislation, especially the 1909 ban on opium importation for nonmedical uses, i.e. smoking, succeeded in making the practice too risky and expensive to continue, compounded by the diminution of the Chinese population in the US through the 1882 Exclusion Act and anti-Chinese racism more generally [ 14 ]. These smokers were instead to switch to morphine and heroin injection, and heroin smoking would remain almost entirely unseen in the US until experimentation by American soldiers in Vietnam in the early 1970s [ 14 ].

Heroin smoking originated in China during the first decades of the 20 th century, sold as ‘red pills’ that could be smoked in similar fashion to opium [ 13 ], although it is thought that heroin was made only marginally bioavailable through this method [ 15 ]. These pills held little heroin, and often contained far greater quantities of other substances, including caffeine, quinine, cocaine and colored dyes, and their use is not thought to have extended much past the 1930s [ 13 , 15 ]. The first form of ‘chasing the dragon’ emerged in Hong Kong during the 1950s, where powdered heroin was combined with barbiturates on foil and heated, allowing for inhalation of the combined vapors [ 15 , 16 ]. This method of consuming heroin, spread to other parts of Asia and eventually Europe by the 1980s, where it initially co-existed with a culture of heroin snorting and injection but later overtook them as the most common route of administration [ 15 ]. In the early 1990s, Des Jarlais et al remarked, ‘no subculture of heroin smoking has ever developed in the United States’ [ 17 ], and this has largely remained true until recently [ 18 ]; treatment data show only 4 percent reported smoking as their preferred route of heroin use, compared with 70 percent reporting injecting [ 19 ]. However, with the emergence of fentanyl as the dominant opioid in the US illicit market and its higher potency relative to heroin, innovation and adaptations in its use, particularly in markets where fentanyl is sold as-is, are of considerable interest [ 12 ].

Research into transitions between modes of administration has largely focused on trajectories towards injection use, initially driven by concerns about HIV outbreaks among this population [ 20 ], although studies also identified ‘reverse transitions’ away from injection among some PWUO [ 20 , 21 ]. Historically it has been common to categorize PWUO based on consumption methods or drug form (smokers versus injectors) and to differentiate between licit and illicit use [ 14 ]. This practice continues and is often reproduced or repurposed by PWUO themselves (e.g. ‘dopefiends’ [ 22 ], ‘sniffers’, ‘chasers’ or ‘injectors’) [ 20 ].

Drug source-form plays a role in mode of use, with specific heroin forms identified as preferential for injection (i.e. powdered heroin hydrochloride salt, the form most common in the US) or smoking routes (i.e. base heroin, the form most common in Europe) [ 6 , 18 , 20 , 23 ]. Bioavailability of various source-forms may be notably different when consumed through different administration routes, with hydrochloride salts particularly poor at providing measurable effects when smoked [ 23 ]. In contrast, fentanyl salts remain stable at temperatures up to 350°C, thus volatilization may be a particularly effective method for fentanyl ingestion [ 24 ].

In the context of North American fentanyl use, there has been little research about large-scale transitions in fentanyl mode of use and health outcomes from such transitions. Some PWUO employ techniques including smoking, snorting (aka ‘tooting’) or tasting drugs to determine potency while injection remained their primary route of administration [ 25 ]. Research in Canada has found that some preferred smoking fentanyl to injecting because the high lasted longer and for physiological reasons, including loss of venous access [ 26 ], while others believed that smoking reduced risk of overdose relative to injecting [ 27 ]. Recently, an observational cohort study in San Francisco, California found that from 2019 to 2020 past 30-days injections had decreased precipitously, while days smoking fentanyl increased [ 1 ]. The novel uptake of fentanyl smoking in San Francisco and the US West Coast requires further study and could presage a much wider uptake of fentanyl smoking across the US.

This study utilized rapid ethnography [ 28 ] to explore experiences and trends surrounding fentanyl and methamphetamine smoking in San Francisco, California. The research team, some of whom were meeting in person for the first time, built rapport with one another while refining the interview guide and conducting background observations in June 2022 (no participant recruitment), and returned for one-week each in September and November 2022, to recruit participants (recruitment period: 9/26/2022–11/18/2022). The team conducted semi-structured interviews capturing information regarding substance use progression and preferences, evolutions in mode of use, changes in the local drug supply, experiences of overdose, and other related topics. Interviews (n = 34) were audio-recorded, averaged 60 minutes, and participants were compensated $25. The team also captured videographic sequences of drug consumption (n = 12)—for which participants were compensated an additional $25—and still photographic evidence of various drug samples, substance use equipment, and the built environment. Daily field notes written by the team supplemented the interview and visual data, highlighting key ethnographic observations and themes for further study. The names of all quoted participants have been changed to protect their privacy. Human subjects approval for the study protocol was given by the University of California, San Francisco Human Research Protection Program (IRB), and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality protects the data.

Recruitment and sample

Recruitment occurred from three different syringe service programs, one of which, the Tenderloin Center , also operated a supervised consumption space in the vicinity of the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods. The Tenderloin is a neighborhood in downtown San Francisco that has been viewed as a ‘containment zone’ for homelessness, substance use and crime [ 29 ], making it the priority for several public health initiatives like the Tenderloin Center . Participants were aged 18 or older, and self-reported fentanyl and/or methamphetamine use by any route. Program staff introduced potential participants to the research team, who then discussed the study and offered a chance to participate. The informed consent documented was read through by each participant, and consent was obtained verbally to protect participant confidentiality. Exclusion criteria covered those unable to consent due to intoxication or other causes. Participants routinely showed the research team any smoking or injecting equipment and often consented to documentation via photography, with some offering to participate in video-recorded consumption sequences.

Audio recordings were professionally transcribed and checked by the authors for accuracy. The authors drafted analytic memos for each transcript according to the methods of Christopoulos [ 30 ] and developed thematic memos to encapsulate themes and ideas generated across multiple interviews. The authors met weekly to discuss emergent themes from the interview transcripts, with ethnographic observations and field notes providing additional context. Photographs were categorized by their contents, and members of the research team transcribed and produced analytic memos for each video-recorded consumption sequence.

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 years, with 31 (91.2%) reporting current smoking practices, while only 18 (52.9%) reported currently injecting despite 30 (88.2%) having a history of injecting and 21 (61.8%) having injected fentanyl. Further demographic and substance use data are available in Table 1 . Additionally, the following shorthand is used throughout to indicate substances by mode of consumption for each participant: injects methamphetamine (IM); injects fentanyl (IF); smokes methamphetamine (SM); smokes fentanyl (SF).

a Participants were asked: “What gender do you identify as?” Open-ended responses produced some unclear results that were grouped with those who declined to answer.

b Participants were asked: “What ethnicity do you identify as?” Self-reported answers produced the following categories and ability to list multiple resulted in numbers that add to greater than 34.

Through open-ended inquiry, participants shared how an evolving drug supply influenced their substance use behaviors and trajectories, with fear of overdose and vein damage providing significant motivation to transition away from injecting and towards smoking as a dominant mode of use. Participants drew on prior experience smoking other substances, but the outsize overdose risk of fentanyl compared to previously smoked substances required the generation of new knowledge and techniques for regulating potency. Smoking proved to be more social in nature relative to injecting, causing participants to reflect on the changing risk environment for people with varying opioid tolerances and strategies for protecting others. Each of these themes are explored in further detail.

Responses to changing markets, bodies and overdose risk

Changing market.

In San Francisco, participants commented that fentanyl arrived as an unadvertised adulterant to heroin but has since been marketed explicitly as fentanyl, or ‘fetty’ as it was often called. Many participants had experience using heroin and commented on the market shift to fentanyl, making heroin difficult or impossible to find. Upon arrival in northern California, Tera, a woman in her 50s (SM; SF) could not find heroin anywhere, saying “that’s how I ended up going to fetty”. Over time, a booming local fentanyl market developed with a wide range of products of varying quality, and consistently cheap pricing—ranging from $5-20/gram but most often quoted at $10/gram. Clay, a man in his 30s (SM; SF), pointed out the range of quality of this low-priced product and also its potential for extreme potency:

Interviewer: Okay. So, when you do smoke fentanyl, how much are you doing in a session? Clay: It depends on the quality of it, for sure. Anywhere from a point [0.1g] to a quarter-gram or sometimes more if it’s not that good or whatever. I’ve sat down and smoked a gram before in a couple hours, but it just wasn’t very strong at all, you know what I mean? You just burn through it, and it’s like, “Wow, it’s just not making a difference. It’s not doing anything.” […] If it’s really good, you’ll fucking smoke like a hit or two and you’ll be almost falling asleep…

The low prices coupled with this market volatility may have created a desire for a consistently stronger product which people called ‘clean’ and priced at $20-50/gram. Jamie, a woman in her 30s (SM; SF; IM; IF), attributed the arrival of ‘clean’ to demand for higher quality fentanyl amidst a fall in fentanyl quality and price.

And I think, like, the quality of, like, the fentanyl itself went way down. I think there was just, like, too much and not enough people buying it anymore, and all the sudden it was, like, cheap, cheap, cheap, and crappy. You know, it all the sudden was, like, $10 a gram or around or less […] I think there was still a demand for, like, higher quality stuff, even if it meant paying more, paying $20, paying $30, $40, $50 a gram.

In addition to potency, products also ranged in color, texture, and taste ( Fig 1 ) but those cues failed to provide consistent insight into the strength of any given product, as Chris, a man in his 30s (SM; SF), explained:

Chris: […] The color is not an indicator. The taste is not an indicator. The size, the shape, the–no. Yeah. Or, no, but, like, if you chemically test it, and you know, yeah, this is actually–which, you know, I’d buy a gram of fentanyl. There’s not a gram of fentanyl. There’s probably, like, 20 micrograms of fentanyl in there, not literally but, you know, it’s not a gram of fentanyl. Interviewer: Got you.

Chris: You know, there’s no way on the streets to determine any of that.

Changing bodies

Having previously used heroin, many participants were able to compare experiences and often shared that fentanyl produced a sufficient high by smoking which was not possible with heroin. Josh, a man in his 40s (SM; unclear fentanyl use), shared an experience of accidentally smoking fentanyl and contrasted it against his experience smoking and injecting opium:

[Smoking fentanyl] felt like pretty much the same as if you were to, like, like, shoot it up or whatever […] it didn’t really, like, how other kinds of heroin, when you smoke, like, other–like, if you smoke opium or things like that, smoking opium feels like smoking opium. It doesn’t feel like–like, you know, shooting up; you know what I mean? Whereas, like, yeah, like, smoking fentanyl, it feels like you, like, shot up a gang of fucking heroin; you know what I mean?

For several people, this market transition to fentanyl coincided with experiences of injection difficulty due to accumulated vein damage. Russell, a man in his 20s (SM; SF), recounted being completely unable to find accessible veins for heroin injection and welcomed the transition to a more smokable substance.

Interviewer 2: And what was that, like, transition point from injecting heroin to smoking fentanyl? What was that like? Russell: It was, like, I–I couldn’t get my shots of heroin anymore, so I was just, like, really dope sick, and someone just, like, oh, I have–I have some fentanyl, and I was, like, oh, I don’t want to do that; you know? Stuff–stuff will kill you. Interviewer 1: Yeah. Russell: And, so, finally I was just, like, oh, here, I’ll try it. And I took one hit, and I fell in love. Like, it was like a high; you know? And I hadn’t been high in, you know, probably like a couple months.

Even for those with high opioid tolerances, fentanyl smoking proved sufficient. Having used heroin intravenously for an extended period, Lana, a woman in her 40s (SM; SF), developed severe difficulty injecting. For her, the discovery of fentanyl smoking was a game changer because its effect was commensurate with injecting. Here she is discussing how this impacted one of her friends in a positive way:

[…] she would stay in the bathroom hours trying to hit because you can’t find your fucking veins, you know what I mean? It is hell. There is nothing worse in the world than being able to hit everybody in the room but yourself, and you can’t fucking get high now. […] You’re sick. You’re more addicted to just getting that needle in than you are to even the drug. It’s crazy. But she got on fentanyl, and she’s smoking it and she stopped at the needle.

Changing overdose risk

Bereavement and personal experience of fentanyl overdose was a prominent theme in conversations with participants. Eric, a man in his 50s (SM; SF), experienced deteriorated vein health after years of injecting heroin, but recalled losing friends to overdose as a compelling motivator in his transition to smoking:

…there’s everybody that was using needles with fentanyl, they were dying, and, like, that’s just–I don’t want to die. I’m just a junkie. I’m just trying to circle–looking for help. I’m–I’m–I have–I have hope one day that I won’t be. But, yeah, so I don’t–I didn’t shoot that stuff because I just–I seen how it was–it was taking bodies. So many people dying from shooting fentanyl.

Oliver, a transgender woman in their 30s (SM; SF; IM; IF), who never smoked heroin and was a “big advocate for IV use”, initially resisted injecting fentanyl after losing several friends to overdose and observing that those who injected were more vulnerable to overdose than those who smoked:

I seen a lot of my friends overdosing. And the less overdoses I seen was with my friends that smoked it than my friends that were IV users.

While our participants typically identified smoking as a safer alternative to injecting, a few strongly believed that smoking was still quite risky. Gena, a person in their 40s (SM; SF), emphasized the rapid impact of smoke inhalation contributing to respiratory depression.

Interviewer: So why this overdosing from fentanyl? Is it–is smoking safer? Gena: No, I wouldn’t say smoking is safer. Smoking fentanyl is a faster way to get high from it because it definitely goes straight to the brain […] and it could definitely slow down your breathing rate very fast without you knowing if you’re not paying attention because it puts you in a sleep state. And when you [are in a] sleep state […] you’re kind of relaxed, and if you’re too relaxed, what could happen? You’ll stop breathing.

Generating knowledge and techniques for smoking fentanyl

Cultural foundation for smoking.

While fentanyl smoking is a recent development, several participants recalled experiences smoking other substances—cannabis, heroin and methamphetamine—as the knowledge base for their current smoking practices. Caroline, a woman in her 40s (SM; SF), used aluminum foil to smoke fentanyl as she had previously done with heroin:

Interviewer: And how did you learn to smoke? Did someone teach you or? Caroline: How to smoke fentanyl? Interviewer: Yeah. Caroline: Well, you smoke it just like black [tar heroin].

Fentanyl can be smoked on foil or with a glass pipe (e.g. the ‘hammer’ pipe in Fig 1 ), and while foil was the most commonly used device observed among our sample, there were widely divergent views on the attractions and drawbacks of each smoking method. With the foil technique participants placed a chunk of fentanyl atop a small rectangular piece of foil and applied heat to the underside which produced a vapor for inhalation through a straw-like device, commonly referred to as a ‘tooter’ ( Fig 2 ). Clay justified his preference for foil over a glass medium—usually a ‘bubble’ pipe ( Fig 3A and 3B ), commonly used for methamphetamine (‘speed’, ‘meth’ or ‘crystal’)—by noting that glass heated to too high a temperature, causing the smoke to be too hot to inhale:

a. Demonstration of fentanyl consumption using the foil technique, b. Fentanyl salt in solid, liquid and burnt forms.

a. dabbing device, b. homemade bong, c, d. elaborate silicon bongs and torches.

Normally, you just get a piece of foil and then just break off a piece of fentanyl on it. Then you find something to roll up like a dollar bill or a piece of paper or a straw if you have it or whatever, ignite it, and smoke it […]. Pretty straightforward process, really. Or you could use a piece of glass, but glass heats it up too much and then it becomes almost like null and void by the end of it. The smoke’s really hot, so you can’t even hardly inhale it, and then it just doesn’t affect the same.

Despite majority of the group using foil to smoke fentanyl, several participants expressed health concerns from inhaling the vapors of heated foil. Russell both disliked the taste from smoking on foil and felt that it was “terrible for your brain”, while Kaila, a person in their 40s (SM; SF; IM; IF), shared their fears that foil vapors cause “Alzheimer’s and all that stuff.” Winston, a man in his 20s (SF; IM; IF), summarized a material trade-off that people must make, preferring to avoid the chemicals associated with foil but explaining that glass caused the fentanyl to burn ( Fig 2B ).

Interviewer 1: Do you prefer foil over the glass pipe? Winston: With fentanyl, yeah, because in the glass pipe you can’t–the heat doesn’t disperse as much, so it stays hot for a longer period of time, which causes it to burn quicker. It turns brown faster, which makes it taste bad.

‘Dabbing’—a process commonly associated with the consumption of cannabis concentrates, e.g. hash, wax, shatter—also proved to be a popular technique among our group. The process of dabbing entailed intensively heating the tip of a ceramic, glass or metal tube-shaped device termed a ‘nail’ and touching the heated end to the drug, producing vapors for inhalation through the cool end of the tube ( Fig 3A ). The team observed some participants using this dabbing process with modest tools, while others had more intricate equipment. Tera shared her dabbing technique using a simple metal pipe with a silicone handle, expressing that less drug is wasted in the process:

Tera: When I’m not broke and poor, I usually dab mine. So, it’s a metal tip. It’s a silicone handle with a metal tip. And you heat it with the torch until it’s like orange, and you touch the fetty rock, and it makes it smoke. Interviewer: What is that? What is that called? Tera: Dabbing. It’s dabbing wax like with weed. Yeah, you just touch it. Because it’s hot, and it makes it smoke, and you waste less of your dope that way.

Like dabbing equipment, bongs were also popular and ranged widely in their design from large and complex to smaller, more transportable, silicon variations that cost roughly $20. These were used by several in our sample and other participants shared with us entirely homemade variations ( Fig 3B–3D ). Eden, a woman in her 40s (SM), showed our team how to create a bong using a simple plastic water bottle and glass bubble ( Fig 3B ). Using a bong produced a much smoother hit that participants found desirable, however, it also allowed much stronger hits—which, while suitable for some, caused overdose concern for others.

Regulating potency

While experience smoking other drugs often formed the cultural foundation for fentanyl smoking, the outsized overdose risk of fentanyl compared to previously smoked substances required participants to generate methods for regulating potency. Some believed the equipment played a significant role in moderating the strength of the hit, with glass being the least potent, followed by foil, then bongs and dabbing devices.

Equipment . Despite being the most common material we observed, some participants believed foil to pose an increased overdose risk compared to glass. Dylan, a man in his 30s (SM; SF), recounted foil’s involvement in most overdoses experienced and witnessed:

The two times that I OD’d that I can recount, both times, I was hitting the foil…That’s why I shied away from foils for a long time, and I was like, you know, I respect the foil, is what I used to say. You know, I would only smoke out of glass. I feel, with glass, you get better hits, but I think that there’s something in the aluminum that, combined with, you know, heat and the fentanyl, that, I mean, most times, when… […] I’ve seen people OD it’s from hitting the foil.

Kenny, a man in his 30s (SM; SF), was also wary of the risks of foil and advised on a stepwise progression through smoking equipment, in accordance with experience:

Interviewer 2: […] what would you have a new person that’s first using fentanyl use? Kenny: […] if they ask me, they say, what you think the best thing to use off safely, I would say a bubble. You know, you want to step it up? A hammer. A hammer is a step above a bubble because a hammer, it’s guaranteed for–for the most part it’s guaranteed glass. And, so, it’s a hard glass, though, and that hammer is, woo, that hammer do one. Woo. If you know what you’re doing, it’s all right. Then you graduate to the foil. […] Like, foil is big dog, but that dab, when you see how many people dab as opposed to how many people use the bubble, the hammer, and the foil, you going to see why the dab’s the heavyweight champion.

Like Kenny, Lana echoed that dabbing produced the strongest hit, even beyond injecting:

[…] It’s just way stronger . It takes it to another level where you don’t really need to slam [inject]. You don’t need to slam no more . You get higher dabbing than you’re going–you can’t get higher . You just can’t get higher .

Ethnographic observation supported the belief that bongs and dabbers provided stronger hits over alternative methods. Members of the research team observed two people using a bong and foil in sequential smoking sequences. Both video-recorded smoking sequences showed entire chunks of fentanyl evaporate upon touching the hotplate of a bong, allowing for only a single inhalation. Conversely, equally sized chunks of fentanyl using the foil technique lasted several hits over an elongated timeframe. For people with high tolerance, like Russell, who consumed two to three grams of fentanyl per day, bongs and dabbers proved to be the only smoking method that produced a sufficient high, potentially mimicking the bolus effect of injection:

When I smoke out of the skillet [the hot plate of a bong], I smoke through two grams in , like , couple hits it seems like .

Heat . As well as varying the smoking equipment, some people also used heat strength to regulate potency, voicing that higher heat created more smoke, resulting in a stronger hit. Kaila voiced that she used a weaker flamed Bic lighter because “if I put a torch on the bubble, it smokes too much, and I might get too big of a hit, too.” Kenny noted the overdose risk from using a more powerful torch:

I can’t smoke off a torch. Like, if I got my foil, I can’t smoke off a torch. It’s too hot for me. I hear it, boom, boop, somebody Narcan [Kenny]! Boop. […] Like, I’m gone.

Consumption together and protecting others

Fentanyl residue.

Through exploring the culture of smoking in San Francisco, the phenomenon of fentanyl residue or ‘resin’ became increasingly apparent. As people smoked fentanyl, a waxy, brown residue remained on the smoking equipment, accumulating over time, and representing a historical record of drugs consumed on that device ( Fig 4 ). For Chris, this drug combination produced a “different type of high” that he found appealing, so much so that it dictated his ‘tooter’ preferences:

I prefer using metal or glass tubes though because the resin will get, will accumulate, and then you can push it out or melt it out, and smoke that, and it’ll be—it’ll collect over time. All the different types of whatever you’ve been smoking, resin will collect. So you’ll get a nice mix of like 12 different types of drugs…

Some people found this resin so desirable that they collected it in containers ( Fig 4 ), however, not everyone felt this way. Several participants would not smoke the residue themselves but disclosed giving it away freely. For instance, Russell called himself “picky” and didn’t “like the way it taste[d] ” , but agreed that the resin was potent and would donate it to others:

Interviewer: So what–what do you do with the residue from– Russell: […] most of the time it–it will save up. It will get all, like, real dark brown and there will be, like, little pieces of fentanyl in there, and I take the nail off, you know, and take, like, a paper clip or something and I’ll scrape it out of there, but I don’t–I don’t smoke it. I give it away or give it to other people. But that stuff is really, like, really strong […]

Chris highlighted a cause for concern regarding shared resin, noting uncertainty of both what drugs were smoked to build up that residue and the tolerance of the recipient.

Interviewer: Now wouldn’t also this idea of resin […] wouldn’t it kinda also be a little dangerous then? Like you know, what if somebody got your pipe… Chris: Yeah and they cleaned all my resin [out of my bong] and they weren’t used to smoking ‘clean’ and I had a lot of ‘clean’ resin in there for instance, yeah they could OD if their tolerance isn’t high enough.

Sharing equipment, drugs and overdose risk

In addition to resin sharing, interviews and observations revealed that several participants frequently shared their smoking equipment. While much of this appeared to be by choice, a staff member attending to the consumption space added that they frequently ran out of specific equipment—most notably pipes—which promoted sharing among the group. Conversely, Melvin, a man in his 40s (SM), attributed increased availability of smoking supplies from the service as contributing to reduced sharing of supplies.

Interviewer: And do people share bubbles pretty often? Melvin: They still do a little here and there. And they used to [use] a lot more. I used to get a lot more people, “Can I use your bubble? Can I fill your bubble, use your bubble, do you have a bubble?” Now that they actually give them out more, it’s a lot less. And then, you can always be like, “Dude, you don’t need my bubble. Because they’re giving them out right there, up the street.”

Not all sharing was intentional, some was incidental. Team members observed people unknowingly drop their own supplies (e.g. paper straw tooters) and pick up someone else’s as their own. When asked explicitly about sharing equipment, the predominant concerns related to hygiene and communicable infections. Gena called sharing pipes “risky”, clarifying her unease as the result of “people putting their lips, saliva, bacteria in your or on your straws”. Oliver expressed a willingness to share their pipe with people “as long as they ain’t got no mono or anything like that…” While not mentioned by all, some participants—like Shawn, a nonbinary individual in their 40s (SM; SF; IM; IF)—related concerns around sharing to the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

Interviewer: Is there any sort of ethic out there around sharing, and borrowing, and lending your bubbles? Shawn: Me, especially since COVID, I’m not smoking after anybody. But yeah, other people are still, like passing a pipe between each other.

Participants discussed sharing not only equipment, but also drugs. During a video-recorded smoking sequence, one participant inhaled a hit and then proceeded to share the foil with people sharing the sidewalk space, adding that he would have also shared his ‘tooter’ but they already had their own. On occasion, participants even offered drugs to members of the research team, although of course these were refused. In the Tenderloin area, this sense of community was commonplace, however participants perceived other neighborhoods as being hostile towards both fentanyl itself and people who use it. These experiences in combination with the concentration of services and a large street economy seemed to foster a more social atmosphere that was conducive to a community around smoking in the downtown neighborhoods.

For some, the question of sharing equipment and drugs evoked a sense of responsibility for the overdose risk of others. Lana indicated that she has a much higher opioid tolerance than others, and tailored the type of equipment she used and would share depending on the social scene in which she found herself. Her concern was partly motivated by protecting others but also the avoidance of unwelcome attention from law enforcement arising from overdoses.

Interviewer 1: When do you use one [smoking device] rather than the other? Lana: It depends on how I feel or how strong my fetty is or who I’m smoking with… […] Interviewer 2: Is this somebody that’s opioid-naive? Lana: Somebody that just doesn’t have a high tolerance. But a lot of people will be like, “I can outsmoke,” and fentanyl’s not a fucking game or a joke. You’ll fucking die, and I don’t want that on my record. If you’ve never smoked before, I’m not smoking with you. And if you don’t have a high tolerance, I’m not going to pull out something stupid for you to smoke on. You’re not going to smoke on my bong or my dabbers. It’s not going to happen.

Clay also conveyed concern for the overdose risk of his peers and distinguished between different individuals he was willing to share with:

Interviewer 1: Do you share a lot? Clay: I try not to, honestly. […] I tend to not share, either, because I don’t want to be the person to give somebody something and for them to fall out or whatever and it be my fault, as far as that goes. Now, if somebody’s terribly sick and it’s clear that they use drugs constantly or I know them really well, I would probably help them out in that situation […]

However, his concern for protecting others was not universal. Clay continued that “ most people don’t think about that for two seconds,” and are impressed that he has. Jamie, a woman in her 30s (SM; SF; IM; IF) was hesitant to share for hygiene purposes, only upon further questioning did she emphasize that overdose risk to others was also a significant worry, explaining a recent occurrence where she shared her foil:

Interviewer: What about in terms of, like, tolerance of the person. Are you ever thinking like, oh, they don’t use fentanyl, or they do, or they use meth, or … Jamie: Oh, yes […] that’s a big thing. Like, if someone is coming up and I don’t know what their tolerance is or what their habit is, like, it’s definitely mentioned, like, prior, hey, this is ‘clean’, it’s not like normal stuff, you can’t just–you know, if you haven’t been smoking for a while or whatever, like. Because, you know, I’ve talked to several people who, like, let someone hit their foil or whatever and then they OD’d, which actually just happened to me recently. And I didn’t–like, it was, like, a random situation…Well, and the guy was saying that he was oh so sick, and he hadn’t smoked in, like, forever, and he needed to smoke […]so, I said, okay, here you go, this is really good stuff. He was right next to where the people that deal the good stuff were, so I kind of thought, okay, he knows what’s up, he’s here where they sell clean, like, I shouldn’t have to say anything, he said he was sick. Well, I let him hit my foil and, you know, I’m kind of doing my own thing. Like, and I don’t hear him say anything else or do–you know, I’m like, hey, how’d that go, did you like that? And I look over and he’s, like, crumpled into, like, a little ball and […] I ended up having to, like, resuscitate him, basically. Like, I gave him a Narcan, I, you know, did some, like, CPR on him and kind of, like, brought him back.

For Josh, the social nature of sharing smoking equipment—along with assumptions about the purpose of each type of equipment—resulted in him accidentally using fentanyl after assuming that a glass bubble contained methamphetamine, which is typically smoked in a glass pipe:

I tried [fentanyl] once on–on a–on accident […] It was just–it was just really, like, just really, like, powerful. […] I was, like, no wonder people can–can die just from smoking this stuff; you know? Because, I mean […] it was in a–a speed pipe; you know? And I was under the impression that it was speed, and I–and I tried it, and then I, yeah, it was–yeah, it was–it was pretty strong.

Early during fieldwork, we observed an interaction in which a random person attempted to borrow a glass pipe from a participant, who vehemently refused. The participant explained that the pipe had been used for fentanyl and did not want to share it with someone who only used methamphetamine. Chris explained this general concern for the overdose risk of others as perhaps a ‘unique’ aspect of San Francisco:

[…] there is a lot of trust on word of mouth, like, with meth user to meth user or whatever, and San Francisco is a pretty unique place. Most people don’t have malevolent intent, so most people aren’t trying to, like, unconsciously kill somebody, or, you know, unwittingly OD them with fentanyl. So, it’s a communal type of thing, like, ’cause that hyper-cautiousness isn’t just with meth users. A good deal of fentanyl users don’t want to hand a pipe that they know or would suspect had fentanyl in it.

Evaluating risk

Consumption dose and frequency.

Both those injecting and smoking described consuming multiple grams of fentanyl daily. Aiden, a man in his 50s (IM; IF), estimated two grams daily, while Russell indicated two to three grams. Some participants used less, for example Cedric, a man in his 40s (SM; SF), estimated that a gram would last three to four days, while Randall, a man in his 30s (SM; SF; IM; IF), used roughly a gram each day. However, some used considerably more. While filming a smoking sequence with another participant, Gena—while smoking fentanyl herself—called out to members of the team that we might want to speak with her as someone “who really knows what is going on”. While possibly an exaggeration, she said “Fentanyl I would smoke all night like three grams back to back and be fine. Like, I’ve had six grams of fentanyl before talking to you guys…”

In addition to smoking large volumes, it was also common for people to report smoking frequently. Caroline, a woman in her 40s (SM; SF), estimated 1–2 hits per hour, saying “I’m not proud of it, but I smoke continuously throughout the day”. Karl smoked hourly, sharing that with smoking, “you need it more, and more, and more…” but that “it’s more of a mental thing…” and that physical sensations of withdrawal would not commence until the end of the day. Along those lines, several participants reported smoking whenever they are “bored”, with Russell saying he will “smoke just to smoke”. Oliver emphasized how the commensal nature of smoking influenced its frequency, saying “It’s became more of a pastime than a treatment for a pain. It’s like a social thing”. Andie, a woman in her 30s (SM; SF; IM), fears that this constant nature of smoking is contributing to overdoses because people are simply “not paying attention to how much [fentanyl] they’re smoking”.

Burns and fires

The heat required of the smoking process introduced a new hazard—burns and fires—reflecting the high risk of combining sedative drug effects with naked flames. Russell had several visible burns from touching hot parts of smoking equipment, saying he “nods out” and burns himself “quite a bit actually”, but also shared experiences of severe fires resulting from knocking over his torch in the locked ‘on’ position. In addition to hot equipment and direct flames, the fentanyl itself caused severe burns that Dylan revealed:

I mean, these are fentanyl burns. These are burns from the residue from fentanyl, and this one is gnarly. I’m just covered, I mean, you know, with burns. Just it slides out, and it’s hot oil, boom, boom!

An organic smoking culture has arisen in San Francisco that is historically significant, i.e., the first known example of a synthetic opioid being widely smoked in the US, and shows elements of both innovation and adaptation. The possibility of smoking fentanyl, whether for an intense bolus-like high or a milder effect, is offering a new potential for non-injected opioid use. Our findings are consistent with “diffusion of innovation” theory, i.e., a social learning process by which members of a group accept new ideas either through opinion leaders, or due to quick understanding of the benefits over costs/risks [ 31 ]. Innovation has historically been considered a force in changing drug trends and modalities, e.g., increased licit and illicit use of the hypodermic syringe, initially to inject morphine, following its invention in the 19 th century [ 14 ]. More recently, a hypothesis using diffusion of innovation theory suggested earlier uptake of smoked, aka ‘crack’, cocaine use among individuals already using ‘hard drugs’ [ 32 ]. Cultural knowledge transmission (e.g., doses, equipment, heating, wind protection) foments the population-level innovation of smoking and includes adaptation of elements from other drug using cultures, e.g., cannabis and methamphetamine, which have long traditions of smoking. While diffusion of innovation theory may be relevant, its application to public health is not without limitations. One possible critique is that it focuses too greatly on individual choices. Further research taking into account the broader context and social dynamics should be considered [ 33 ].

Our findings highlight an important novel risk factor for overdose: sharing of the bioactive residue or resin left in the smoking equipment. This could be seen as analogous to the risk of shared injection paraphernalia and HIV transmission [ 34 – 36 ]. Smoked fentanyl and methamphetamine residues look similar and the equipment used often overlaps. While many persons use both methamphetamine and fentanyl there is a sizable population who solely use methamphetamine. Our data highlight this as a new overdose risk as the residue is quite frequently shared, traded or stolen, with potential mismatch between the potency of the residual drug and the tolerance of the recipient. Harm reduction-based and culturally attuned education campaigns need to be rapidly advanced to address this new risk.

An important question is broached but not satisfactorily answered by this research: how does smoking impact overdose risk? Many participants held the notion that smoking fentanyl posed a lower risk of overdose than injecting it. Smoking heroin is considered more protective of overdose, compared to injection [ 37 ], due to potentially slower intake and lower blood concentrations, i.e., decreased bolus effect. Recent data showing a self-reported reduction in non-fatal overdoses among people who smoke fentanyl compared to people who inject fentanyl suggest this may also be true to some extent for the more potent opioid, fentanyl [ 38 ]. Much of the smoking consumption we witnessed involved smaller doses with high frequency, compared with those seen in our previous research with heroin/fentanyl via injection [ 25 , 39 , 40 ]. However, the opposite potential is also true: we witnessed folks possibly mimicking injection-like boluses by smoking large amounts with single bong hits. San Francisco has seen high levels of overdose since 2019, with 2020 surpassing 700 overdose deaths. Unfortunately, preliminary data reveal that 2023 has overtaken 2020 as the deadliest year on record, with 806 overdose deaths [ 41 ]. In addition, we observed extraordinary daily doses of fentanyl being consumed. For example, we regularly heard or observed persons consuming a gram, or more, of street fentanyl per day. Assuming 5% purity by weight (a strong possibility since the local spectrometry machines can routinely pick up fentanyl and their lower limit of detection is ~5%), this infers an approximate dosage of 50 mg of pure fentanyl/day–an extraordinary amount (but not including losses to the environment). The impressively low cost and high availability of IMF likely enables this level of consumption. More research is needed on dose, frequency, total daily consumption of smoked fentanyl, plasma blood levels, and comparing routes of use.

As well as promoting camaraderie among people smoking fentanyl, the shared smoking culture that we saw in parts of SF could both decrease [ 42 ] and increase risk. A number of participants described the precautions they took to prevent their opioid naïve peers from using their smoking equipment and overdosing on the bioactive fentanyl residues. Sharing saliva borne pathogens when passing pipes, bongs or tooters was a prominent concern among those we spoke with. There were also hints that larger quantities than intended were sometimes consumed during social participation than alone. If Andie’s observation that people are “not paying attention to how much they’re smoking” is correct, this coupled with the low cost and high availability of IMF, sociability and other factors are leading to exceedingly high consumption rates. This highlights the need for data that can inform harm reduction education that is understanding of and responsive to the perceptions of PWUO.

In previous work we have highlighted some of the harm reduction techniques used by participants to (potentially) ameliorate overdose risk from injecting fentanyl-adulterated heroin: snorting, aka “tooting,” a bit before injecting, judging the potency by “taste,” and utilizing tester shots, i.e., smaller, or more dilute amounts, before committing to the full dose [ 25 ]. Similarly, fentanyl smokers also have notions of regulating potency, and thus possibly altering overdose risk, through lower heat (ordinary lighter vs torch) and different equipment (bubble vs hammer vs foil vs dabber), and different dosing techniques.

Recommendations to reduce the risk of overdose from fentanyl smoking–go slower, reduce dose/increase frequency, keep track of consumption, don’t share equipment/residue until you confirm the tolerance of the recipient–are potentially viable interventions and deserve further exploration. Many carry and report using naloxone to reverse overdoses; interventions to promote naloxone carry [ 43 ] may have greater impact in this commensal environment. In addition, we need further investigation into why some PWUO continue to inject, with an aim to develop interventions to enhance transitions to smoking.

The increasing spread of xylazine adulterating fentanyl supplies is also of particular concern [ 44 ]. One study participant who took his supply of ‘clean’ fentanyl for drug testing found that it was adulterated with xylazine, the first such result in San Francisco. The implications of smoked xylazine/fentanyl combinations are unknown.

While the potential for respiratory complications is an unknown, smoking over injecting fentanyl has possible benefits to individuals and society: reduced burden from HIV/HCV transmission, as well as from injection-related bacterial infections, e.g., in the tissues of the skin, bone, heart, etc. [ 45 ]. HIV diagnoses have been rising nationally for White adults, in the transmission category of injection drug use, from 2013 to 2021 [ 46 ] and several local HIV outbreaks have been documented in the eastern and mid-western US [ 47 , 48 ]. It is quite possible that if smoking becomes a norm among fentanyl users across the US, then HIV incidence in this population will drop. However, open hostility to harm reduction services is also evident in the US, with successful calls by some politicians in 2022 to prevent pipes from being added to safer smoking kits in federal funding streams for harm reduction organizations [ 49 ]. Ensuring adequate safer smoking supplies is paramount given the social environment and elevated risk of sharing resin. This concern is compounded locally by the closure of the Tenderloin Center, a crucial harm reduction service in San Francisco, in late 2022.

The results presented are from qualitative research using purposive, non-random sampling and as such are limited in generalizability. Other groups, places and contexts will likely yield different findings. Qualitative research methods offer greater depth in cultural and contextual understandings and can generate hypotheses for quantitative testing. Social desirability may have introduced some bias, however triangulation of data between interviews and observations aids in improving validity.

Our work represents a “deep dive” into the nascent culture of fentanyl smoking. This innovation is likely to advance across the country as some of the risks of injection, e.g., vein loss and infections, are ameliorated, while drug effects are maintained or enhanced. Stigma is reduced while commensality is enhanced. Overdose risk is a wildcard: the use and sharing of drug residue is a highlighted new risk. Ethnographic research, such as presented here, can help in designing much-needed culturally appropriate and acceptable interventions, especially harm reduction-based programming.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study would like to extend appreciation to the staff of the Tenderloin Center as well as the other unnamed syringe service organizations, and also to each participant for sharing their knowledge and experiences.

Funding Statement

The research was funded by The US National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, grant DA054190 (PI: Ciccarone). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability