255
Vol. 16 No. 4
Editorial:
Qualitative Descriptive Research: An Acceptable Design
The goal of qualitative descriptive studies is a comprehensive summarization, in everyday terms, of specific
events experienced by individuals or groups of individuals. To some researchers, such a qualitative design category
does not exist. Unfortunately, this has forced other researchers, especially novices to the methods of qualitative
research, to feel they have to defend their research approach by giving it ‘epistemological credibility.’ This has
led to the labeling of many research studies as phenomenology, grounded theory, or ethnography, when in fact
these studies failed to meet the requirements of such qualitative approaches.
There are a number of researchers who believe and support the fact that ‘qualitative descriptive’ is a viable
and acceptable label for a qualitative research design. While phenomenology, grounded theory, and ethnography
also are descriptive qualitative approaches, by nature, they are not exclusively in the descriptive domain because
they also tend to explain phenomena. Thus, a basic/fundamental qualitative descriptive design is a valuable method
in and of itself. According to Sandelowski,1 qualitative descriptive research: should be seen as a categorical, as
opposed to a non-categorical, alternative for inquiry; is less interpretive than an ‘interpretive description’ approach
because it does not require the researcher to move as far from or into the data; and, does not require a conceptual
or highly abstract rendering of the data, compared to other qualitative designs.
Qualitative descriptive studies are the least “theoretical” of all of the qualitative approaches to research.
In addition, qualitative descriptive studies are the least encumbered studies, compared to other qualitative
approaches, by a pre-existing theoretical or philosophical commitment. For example, phenomenology, grounded
theory, and ethnographic are based on specific methodological frameworks that emerged from specific disciplinary
traditions. By comparison, qualitative descriptive studies tend to draw from naturalistic inquiry, which purports
a commitment to studying something in its natural state to the extent that is possible within the context of
the research arena. Thus, there is no pre-selection of study variables, no manipulation of variables, and no prior
commitment to any one theoretical view of a target phenomenon. Although qualitative descriptive studies are
different from the other qualitative research designs, qualitative descriptive studies may have some of the overtones
of the other approaches. In other words, a qualitative descriptive study may have grounded theory overtones,
because it used constant comparative analysis when examining the data. However, a qualitative descriptive study
is not grounded theory, because it does not produce a theory from the data that were generated.
Regarding the use of sampling in a qualitative descriptive design, virtually any purposeful sampling
technique may be used. Like any other qualitative research design, the goal is to obtain cases deemed rich in
information for the purpose of saturating the data. Of basic importance is for researchers to be able to defend their
sampling strategies to meet the purposes of their studies.
