Start with methodology, not just “doing interviews”
Qualitative research asks questions about experiences, meanings, perceptions, behaviours and processes. The methodological approach—such as reflexive thematic analysis, grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography or qualitative description—should match the research aim and shape sampling, data collection and analysis.
Approval and governance
Usually needs formal review / authorisation
- Prospective interviews/focus groups with patients or staff for research typically require ethics/governance review and informed consent.
- Audio/video recording, sensitive topics and identifiable quotations require explicit privacy and data-security planning.
- Recruitment through clinical relationships requires safeguards against perceived coercion.
May follow a lighter or different route
- Some internal service-evaluation interviews may use a non-research governance route if officially classified that way.
- Analysis of openly licensed, genuinely public text may have a different ethics route, but privacy expectations and platform terms still matter.
Do not do this
- Do not promise “anonymous” focus groups; researchers cannot guarantee that other participants will keep what they hear confidential.
- Do not store raw recordings in personal messaging apps or unapproved cloud services.
- Do not select only quotations that fit a preferred theme while ignoring contradictory data.
Mediclinic Middle East publicly states that research projects carried out at MCME are to receive approval from its internal Research and Ethics Committee and applicable local regulatory authorities before initiation. The exact route varies by project, facility and emirate. Dubai projects may involve DSREC depending on applicability. This hub must therefore route users to the Research Office and current local forms rather than declaring a project “ethics exempt.” Institution-specific forms and contacts will be inserted after verification.
Step-by-step workflow
Define the qualitative question
Use open questions such as “How do clinicians experience…?” or “What factors shape…?” rather than questions primarily requiring numerical prevalence.
Choose the methodological approach
State the approach and why it fits the question. This determines what counts as data, how the researcher engages with participants and how themes/concepts are developed.
Define sampling strategy
Purposive sampling is common: select participants who can illuminate the question. Specify desired variation (role, experience, site, demographic factors) and stopping logic such as information power or methodological saturation where appropriate.
Develop recruitment and consent materials
Explain voluntary participation, recording, use of quotations, withdrawal rules, confidentiality limits and what happens to recordings/transcripts.
Create and pilot the interview/focus-group guide
Use open prompts, neutral probes and an order that moves from broad to specific. Avoid leading questions that reveal the desired answer.
Plan researcher reflexivity
Record researchers’ roles, assumptions, relationships with participants and how these may influence data collection/interpretation.
Obtain approvals and secure recording/storage
Use approved devices/platforms and encrypted storage. Define who can hear recordings, who transcribes, how identifiers are removed and when recordings are deleted.
Collect data iteratively
Document field notes and analytic observations after sessions. Update probes when new concepts emerge, while preserving the core study question and documenting amendments.
Transcribe and de-identify
Specify whether transcription is verbatim, how nonverbal information is represented and how names/locations are replaced. Quality-check transcripts against recordings.
Code systematically
Use the chosen analytic approach. Maintain a codebook when appropriate, analytic memos and an audit trail of how codes/themes/categories evolved.
Seek disconfirming and minority perspectives
Actively examine data that challenge the dominant interpretation. Do not equate frequency with importance unless frequency is part of the analytic framework.
Use quotations responsibly
Select quotations that substantiate interpretations while minimising re-identification. Remove unnecessary contextual details and ensure consent covers quotation use.
Report with COREQ/SRQR as appropriate
Describe research team/reflexivity, design, sampling, setting, data collection, analysis, trustworthiness, participant characteristics and illustrative data. COREQ is specifically designed for interviews/focus groups; SRQR is broader qualitative reporting guidance.
Final checklist
- Methodology matches question.
- Sampling rationale explicit.
- Consent covers recording/quotations.
- Confidentiality limits explained.
- Reflexivity documented.
- Analysis has an audit trail.
- Contradictory data considered.
- Quotations de-identified.
- COREQ or SRQR checklist completed as appropriate.
Quality and trustworthiness checks
- Keep an audit trail linking raw data, codes, analytic memos, theme/category development and final claims.
- Use team discussion, double-coding or independent review when it fits the chosen methodology; do not present inter-rater reliability as a universal requirement for all qualitative paradigms.
- Consider member reflection/checking only when it makes methodological sense; participants do not simply “validate” one objectively correct interpretation in every qualitative approach.
- Describe how sampling decisions evolved and why data collection stopped.
- Explain the role of the researcher and how professional position, prior beliefs or relationships with participants may have shaped the data.
- Protect participants when quotations contain rare job roles, events, locations or combinations of details that make them identifiable even after names are removed.
Writing the results and discussion
- Organise results around themes, categories, processes or theoretical constructs produced by the chosen analytic method.
- For each major finding, give an analytic explanation supported by carefully selected quotations or field data rather than a list of quotations with little interpretation.
- Report contradictory or minority experiences when they materially affect interpretation.
- In the discussion, connect findings to prior qualitative and quantitative literature without forcing qualitative findings into prevalence statements.
- Limit transferability claims to contexts supported by the sampling and setting.