Scientific research in which researchers collect data comprises quantitative and
qualitative approaches. The former collects quantitative data using measurements and analyzes
these data statistically. The latter acquires qualitative linguistic data, such as interview and
observation data, which are analyzed in various scientific ways. It is important to note that
both approaches are empirical science.The dominant focus of medical science and practice has been bio-medical. However, in
1977, Engel (1977) highlighted the necessity of a “bio-psycho-social” model.[1] Since then, our society has also become more
multi-/cross-cultural. Therefore, medical research is expected to include a
psycho-socio-cultural aspect. Qualitative research can reflect this aspect, as it may
investigate factors such as hope, belief, cognition, values, meaning, and the significance of
human thoughts and conduct. These factors are subjective and inter-subjective, linguistic and
non-linguistic, dynamic and interactional, irrational and contradictory, and are often not
measurable quantitatively. In addition, a dominant aspect of education is essentially
psycho-socio-cultural. Therefore, a qualitative approach has become indispensable in both
medical research and medical education research; today, more qualitative research is conducted
in these areas than before.
Research Paradigms in Qualitative Research
The paradigm in quantitative research is positivist without exception, meaning
quantitative researchers can ignore the concept of a research paradigm. However, qualitative
researchers adopt diverse approaches from very positivist to very interpretivist. Denzin and
Lincoln (2017) discussed a comprehensive variety of research paradigms used in qualitative
research.[2] Otani (2019) indicated that these
paradigms were continuously distributed within the “qualitative research spectrum” (Figure 1).[3]
This means that it is necessary for researchers to be aware of different research paradigms to
fully understand qualitative research. This is particularly important as most qualitative
medical research in Japan, with few exceptions such as Takahashi et al. (2018),[4] has adopted a positivist paradigm rather than an
interpretivist paradigm. This may partly be because such positivist qualitative research has an
affinity with readers who are accustomed to quantitative research (which is completely
positivist). However, it may also be because when qualitative research was introduced into
Japan, a positivist paradigm was used. In other words, Japanese qualitative medical research has
not yet caught up with international development of the paradigm shift in qualitative research.
Therefore, a major challenge for medical qualitative research in Japan is to design and conduct
qualitative research using an interpretivist paradigm, and demonstrate the meaningfulness of
such an approach.
Figure 1
Spectrum of Qualitative Research
The Qualitative Research Article in This Issue
Fortunately, this issue has one such article, titled “Moving beyond superficial
communication to collaborative communication: learning processes and outcomes of
interprofessional education in actual medical settings” by Mihoko Ito et al.[5] This is a well-designed and well-conducted
interpretivist qualitative study on medical interprofessional education. The authors’
interpretative analysis of interview data is excellent in its depth and significance, and their
study offers a model for further qualitative medical and medical education research, both in
Japan and internationally.
Research Ethics in Qualitative Research
Research ethics is a crucial issue in qualitative research. For example, in
quantitative research, it is possible to anonymize data to become unlinkable, so that even the
researcher cannot know to whom the data belong. However, in qualitative research, although it is
possible to preserve participant anonymity for readers, it is impossible to also make the data
completely anonymous to the researcher. This is because qualitative data include information
from which the researcher can identify a participant. This is just one example of how ethical
issues differ between qualitative and quantitative research. In the abovementioned article, the
authors designed, conducted, and reported their research carefully, meaning there were no
ethical problems despite reaching a significant conclusion. Therefore, this article could also
offer a model of research ethics of interpretative qualitative research.
Expectation
I hope that the abovementioned article acts as a catalyst for the further
development of medical and medical education qualitative research that uses a range of
interpretative paradigms.
Figure 1