We all know how to "prove" something is true. We learned it in high school and college – it is called the "scientific method". Using this method, we advance a theory or hypothesis to describe some part of our world, reason our way through to a predicted observable outcome, test it using an experiment, and then we determine whether or not our hypothesis was valid. If the experiment verified our theory, then the theory was true, if not, we knew it was false. This method, also called positivism, implies definable, precise measurement, deductive reasoning, and controlled experiment – quantification and objectivity are paramount.

For many of us, this is the one way to find truth and reality. The academic world, and indeed the world at large have come to view truth as defined by the scientific method as the only verifiable and valid way of knowing. One need only look at the history of the 19^th and 20^th Centuries to see the impact of this belief system. Our societies are filled with technologies developed based on science, and human existence has been changed enormously by this view of truth and reality. Public discourse depends heavily on "studies" by individuals who are specialists in various scientific fields. These "experts" have come to be regarded as the only "objective" and truly rational sources of knowledge for us to use in our daily lives. Most other knowledge – in religion or humanities, for example - is relegated to the category of superstition or "soft" knowledge. In other words, it may interesting, but it is not "truth". According to its proponents, only scientifically acquired knowledge can meet that test.

But, suppose we must determine the reality of a different kind of situation or in a different context. Consider for example, human attitudes, values and behavior in large organizations. The "truth" of these kinds of situations are not so easily tested and verified using precise measurements. Data are difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to measure precisely. The "facts" of these are filled with enormous complexity and nuance, far beyond the reach of most "scientific" or statistical tools. There are almost always many variables, interacting in very subtle ways. Often, emotions play important parts in the process, and as we all know, it is notoriously difficult to quantify such things as a person’s commitment or anger or motivation.

Unfortunately for most scientists, the difficulty of defining data in these situations renders the pure scientific method nearly useless. It is extremely difficult even to formulate starting theories or hypotheses that can then be tested by experiment. Even if one can develop a starting hypothesis, precise and quantifiable measurement can be highly problematic. In short, true deductive reasoning is ill-suited to situations involving human values and attitudes.

If deductive reasoning is not well suited to solving some problems, what can we use to understand these kinds of common human situations? The alternative way to study them is to use what are called qualitative methods. These methods depend on different kinds of "facts" and operate in ways different from the scientific method, and they do not provide theories that can be verified via rigorous experiment. They do however provide other humans with insight and understanding of the realities of many things, particularly when applied in rigorous and thorough ways.

What is different about qualitative research that makes it better suited to these situations? First, it is subjective in character; i.e. it views the world as socially constructed defined by the subjects’ views of it. In other words, there is no independent reality, set apart from that observers and participants, that can be discovered and defined the same way be all investigators. This is in direct contrast to the scientific view of the world as external and objective. Furthermore, a qualitative researcher looks for the meaning of things, and tries to understand what happened as understood by the participants in the situation. Also, he will be part of what is observed and studied. Most importantly, he tries to see things in their totality, not as isolated elements. The scientific observer, on the other hand, tries to remain independent of the process being studied, focuses on facts, and reduces the elements of a situation to element facts. Finally, qualitative research relies on the opposite of deductive reasoning, i.e., inductive reasoning. Instead of trying to predict outcomes from theory as deductive reasoning does, inductive reasoning attempts to develop ideas and understanding – theories if you will – from data.

As one might expect, there are many kinds of qualitative research. Given that human endeavor is so complex and highly variable, it is unlikely that any one tool would serve researchers in all cases, hence researchers have developed five primary ways of working, which are:

Probably the most common type of qualitative research used in the management field is the grounded theory, because it can yield understanding and theories that can sometimes be transferred to other situations.

As with scientific research, grounded theory begins with data gathering. Typically, interviews are conducted with organization members, who are asked general questions about the subjects under study. The purpose of using general questions initially is to allow the subjects to range into other areas in their comments, assuring that the subject’s views are fully explored. These interviews are recorded and later transcribed for further review.

The data derived is then coded and analyzed. Coding in this case simply means looking for common themes that arose during the questioning, then categorizing them and looking for connections between themes. After the data are examined, the researchers may conduct further interviews to refine the data, and then reanalyze as well. This iteration and reiteration process continues until the data is "saturated. Saturated means that the researcher is satisfied that the themes discovered and analyzed occur repeatedly enough to ensure that coverage is adequate, and that the categories are both meaningful and important.

The data, themes and links are then further analyzed in an attempt to derive a "theory" of the process or organization under study. Theories derived are general in nature, and hopefully are transferable as valid descriptions of similar organization. They should include a description of a core phenomenon, cause and effect relationships, consequences, and limiting parameters.

In this paper, we have examined the differences between "scientific" and "qualitative" research methods, and have hopefully constructed a valid argument for greater use of qualitative methods. This argument flies in the face of what is still conventional wisdom, however. Most academic researchers still regard "scientific" or quantitative methodologies as the only way to "truth". Refereed journals, tenure committees and most of the academic establishment still leans toward an attitude that says, "if it isn’t scientifically researched, it isn’t rigorous or valid or worthy of the title research".

Fortunately there are some researchers, at least in this author’s field (Construction Management), who believe that to apply tools derived from physics and other physical sciences to human endeavor is both inappropriate and misleading. In their view, the results of such research are misleading and often miss key points of a larger picture. They also question whether or not a researcher can be truly "objective" or detached from the object of study, as is required in true scientific research.

Their basic premise is that human values, attitudes and knowledge are far too complex and subtle to be measured solely using statistics and other so-called scientific methods. These researchers think it better that we study the total situation, and view it through the eyes of an informed observer who can recognize and interpret subtle data that would otherwise be lost in the rigid application of a "scientific" tool. The informed observer can understand nuance and shades of meaning that can never be captured in a questionnaire, and these subtleties can only be discovered through qualitative methods.

Consequently, many in the field are moving away from the "traditional" methods of constructing a set of questions, collecting responses and then applying complex quantitative tests to the results to determine the "truth" of the situation. They are instead engaging their subjects in informed discussions and interviews, and are discovering things about participant values and attitudes that were simply missed under the old regime. This bodes well for the future of the discipline – if the trend truly takes hold, we can finally start to truly understand what happens in the field and thus start to improve, rather than continuing to invest in narrow and sometimes irrelevant studies based on inappropriate methodologies.