Section 15. Qualitative Methods to Assess Community Issues

• What are qualitative methods of assessment?

• Why use qualitative methods of assessment?

• When would you use qualitative methods of assessment?

• How do you use qualitative methods of assessment?

Using qualitative assessment methods along with quantitative information is crucial to understanding many community issues and needs. Numbers work well to show comparisons, progress, and statistics about community efforts, but they cannot fully express motives, opinions, feelings, experiences, or relationships. This section discusses how to use qualitative assessment methods and when to incorporate them into community planning.

What are qualitative methods of assessment?

Qualitative methods of assessment are ways of gathering information that yield results that can’t easily be measured by or translated into numbers. They are often used when you need the subtleties behind the numbers – the feelings, small actions, experiences, or pieces of community history that affect the current situation. They acknowledge the fact that experience is interpreted through the perceptions and world views of the people undergoing it – and that it’s important to understand those perceptions and world views.

There are two major approaches to gathering research information: quantitative methods and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are those that express their results in numbers. They tend to answer questions like “How many?” or “How much?” or “How often?” When they’re used to compare things – the results of community programs, the effects of an economic development effort, or attitudes about a community issue – they generally use consistent measures or questions whose answers can be translated into numbers. That way, comparisons can be made using the same standard. Quantitative measures are often valued by policymakers because they make patterns and differences easier to measure and compare.

Qualitative methods don’t necessarily yield numerical results in themselves. They may involve asking people for detailed answers about often-complex issues, or observing interactions in complex situations. When you ask a lot of people for their reactions to or explanations of a community issue, you’re likely to get a lot of different answers. When you observe a complex situation, you may see a number of different aspects of it, and a number of ways in which it could be interpreted. You’re not only not comparing apples to apples, you may be comparing apples to bulldozers or waterfalls. As a result, qualitative information can be more difficult to compare than quantitative information. If qualitative methods are used carefully, however, they can yield valuable and credible information.

Qualitative and quantitative methods are, in fact, complementary. Each has strengths and weaknesses that the other doesn’t, and together, they can present a clearer picture of the situation than either would alone. Often, a fuller understanding is obtained when several varieties of each method are used. That’s not always possible, but when it is, it can yield useful results.

There are a number of qualitative methods that can be used in assessment of issues or community needs. We’ll list the major ones here, and look at them in more detail later in the section.

They include:

• Individual interviews. These may be structured interviews, where the questions are determined beforehand, or unstructured conversations that are allowed to range wherever the interviewee wants to go in relation to the general topic. Even in structured interviews, there may be room for both interviewers and interviewees to pursue related topics that provide useful context. The difference, however, is that in a structured interview, all the planned questions are formally asked, and the interviewer does their best to make sure they’re answered.
• Group interviews. These are similar to individual interviews, but involve two or more interviewees at a time, rather than one. Group interviews have some advantages, in that interviewees can add to or question one another’s memories (“I remember that happening in a different way…”), and stimulate one another’s thinking. At the same time, the interviewer has to be somewhat of a facilitator, making sure that no one person dominates, and that everyone gets a reasonable chance to speak.

A special case of group interviewing is a focus group. This is a small group, often about 6-10 people, led by a trained facilitator and assembled to answer a specific question or questions. Depending on the purpose of the group, participants may or may not know one another. If trained facilitators are available, focus groups can be a good way to gather detailed information about an issue.

• Observation. Here, someone actually goes and looks at a place or event, watches situations or interactions, or takes part in the life of the community or a population while recording what they observe.
• Community or other large meetings. These meetings allow a range of people a chance to express their opinions and react to others’. They can draw on a large pool of opinions and knowledge at one time, and uncover disagreements or differences that can then be discussed.
• Interpretation of records, transcripts, etc. This can range from qualitative interpretation of quantitative data, to using quantitative data as a jumping-off point for qualitative assessment, to case studies (detailed examinations of individual cases). The last are not always useful for describing an entire community, but they can help illuminate how an issue affects particular people or situations.

Some types of qualitative information can be organized into numerical categories or counts, although doing so can leave out important details. The information may simply be too complex to fit easily into numerical categories. Software programs such as NVivo and Atlas.ti, among others, are designed to help researchers organize and analyze qualitative data.

Since qualitative methods produce information that is not always easy to compare numerically, people who want hard and fast evidence may sometimes be less familiar or comfortable with them. In fact, both quantitative and qualitative measures can be important, depending on the situation. When you’re assessing community issues, as we’ve discussed, you’ll often get closest to a fuller picture by using both. The challenge may be demonstrating to policymakers, funders, and others that your qualitative methods were carried out carefully and that your conclusions are well supported by the information collected.

There is ongoing discussion in the research community about the best standards for evaluating qualitative methods. Some standards overlap with those used in quantitative research, while others reflect the different kinds of information qualitative methods produce and the ways that information is collected and interpreted.

The British government, for instance, has developed a framework for demonstrating qualitative reliability, which includes a set of 18 questions that a qualitative assessment or study should be subjected to (see Tool #1).

Guidelines that can help strengthen the credibility and reliability of your qualitative assessment include:

• Report accurately and completely. Whether you’re interviewing, observing, or engaging in some other technique, you should faithfully record relevant details such as the time and place of your activity, who was involved, what the situation was, etc. In that way, you can see similarities and differences, and make comparisons where they’re appropriate. The recording of interviews, observations, and other information should be as accurate and complete as practical.
• Frame the right questions, and direct them appropriately. Occasionally, it works to explore a topic without knowing exactly what you’ll find. In most instances, however, you should have a clear sense of the important questions and where you need to look for answers. The clearer you can be – and the clearer it is that the questions you’re asking will lead to real understanding and effective action – the more useful your inquiry is likely to be.
• Use qualitative methods specifically to gain information you can’t easily get from quantitative methods. You can quantify how many members of a group that has been underrepresented live in a particular neighborhood. It’s much harder to quantify a clear understanding of how they experience relationships with their neighbors, and why.
• Use the method(s) that can best help you answer the questions you’re asking. If you want to know the state of vacant lots in a city, you’re less likely to determine it by asking people than you are by going and looking at the lots themselves. On the other hand, you usually can gain more information about people’s opinions through talking to them than you can from observation.
• Recognize your own assumptions and distinguish observation from interpretation. It’s easy to get caught up in the passion of interviewees’ opinions, or in your own response to particular conditions. If you want your findings to be credible, you should be clear about what was directly observed or said and what is your interpretation of it. One way to strengthen the process is to have more than one person review interviews, observations, or interpretations and compare what they recorded and how they understood the information.

Researchers aim to describe and interpret what they find as accurately and fairly as possible. At the same time, everyone brings experiences, assumptions, and perspectives to the work. In qualitative research, it can be more useful to recognize and examine those influences than to assume they can always be completely removed.

Especially in community assessment, being aware of your own reactions and assumptions can help you understand the community more clearly. Reflecting on your responses to difficult conditions, particular individuals, or cultural practices can help you distinguish what you actually observed from the conclusions you draw from it, thereby strengthening the credibility of your findings.

Why use qualitative methods of assessment?

The basic reason to use qualitative methods is that there are some kinds of questions and some dimensions of community assessment that can be better addressed by them than by quantitative methods. The methods you use should be determined by the questions you’re asking. Some of the major reasons to use qualitative methods include:

• They answer some questions that quantitative measures can’t. Quantitative methods may tell you how many people do a certain thing, but they’re unlikely to tell you how or why they do it. Qualitative methods can better answer the how and why questions, and also provide other information in the process.
• They connect directly with the population and the community with which you’re concerned. In assessment, some of the most important sources of information are the people closest to what’s being assessed: they experience it directly. Qualitative methods generally go directly to those sources with more complex questions than quantitative methods.
• They can get at certain underlying realities of the situation. Once again, quantitative methods often don’t answer “why?” questions, while qualitative methods can tell you about the history of the community or issue, who the significant supporters are, who holds differing perspectives on various ideas, whom people in the community listen to, etc. In an assessment situation, these can be crucial pieces of information.
• They can involve the population of interest, or the community at large, in helping to assess the issues and needs of the community. This participation can foster a sense of ownership and support for the efforts.
• They often allow for a deeper examination of the situation or the community than quantitative methods do. Quantitative methods, although helpful, often organize people or events into specific categories and use standardized response choices. Qualitative methods allow for following promising directions (“Why do you say that?”), and can lead to the discovery of important information that quantitative results may not have revealed.
• They allow for the human factor. Qualitative methods make room for people’s experiences, interpretations, and perspectives, while also allowing researchers to examine how those perspectives shape the information being collected.

When would you use qualitative methods of assessment?

Clearly, there are times when quantitative research will give you the information you need. So when do you use qualitative methods? It depends to a great extent on the question you’re asking. (The first four situations below are based on a USAID guide to using rapid appraisal methods, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips.)

• When what you need is qualitative, descriptive information. Particularly in an assessment situation, what you’re often looking for is descriptive or analytical information that has little to do with quantitative measures. The type of information provided by qualitative methods is often exactly what you’re looking for in community assessment to decide on next steps.
• When you’re trying to understand the reasons and motivations for people’s behavior, or how they operate in particular situations. Why don’t people take advantage of human service programs for which they’re eligible? What are the differences in the ways people of different cultural backgrounds experience or respond to services? These are the kinds of questions you’re likely to want to answer in a community assessment, and they often can’t be answered quantitatively.
• When you’re analyzing quantitative data. As mentioned above, quantitative findings can sometimes raise questions that qualitative methods can help you explore.

An unusual set of numbers – a community with relatively lower incomes, but where a large majority of people own their homes, for instance – might be the springboard for a qualitative examination of why this is so. A number of reasons are possible:

• The community is largely older adults, and people are living in long-since-paid-for houses they bought 40 or more years ago, when their income was higher and housing was less expensive.
• One or more local banks have made it a priority to help people buy houses, and provide low-interest mortgages and other subsidy programs to further that goal.
• Some households may have made homeownership a major financial priority, limiting other spending in order to save for property and education.
• Housing prices may be unusually low because the community has experienced long-term disinvestment, deteriorating housing conditions, safety concerns, or limited services.
• A combination of factors, some of which may not be listed here.

By and large, quantitative methods won’t easily tell you the reasons for this unusual situation, but qualitative methods can help you explore them.

• When you’re trying to develop suggestions and recommendations. Again, this is often the primary purpose of community assessment. How should you design a program or initiative to accomplish a major community goal or deal with an issue? What will people respond to? Qualitative data may provide important information here, or may be used together with quantitative information to provide a fuller picture on which to base your strategy.
• When you want to involve the community in assessment as directly as possible. Involving community members directly can build ownership and support for initiatives, and can bring valuable experience and knowledge into the process. Qualitative assessment methods, for the most part, collect information directly from community members themselves, and allow them to explain their experiences and perspectives in detail.
• When you’re doing community-based participatory research (i.e., involving the community directly in planning and implementing assessment). Community-based participatory research often relies greatly on qualitative assessment methods.
• When quantitative data are unavailable or unobtainable.
• When you don’t have the capacity to use quantitative methods. You may not have the proper training, software, time, or other resources needed to use quantitative methods appropriately.

How do you use qualitative methods of assessment?

Now that you’re convinced of the importance of using qualitative methods of assessment, how are you going to do it? There’s seldom one right way to do anything, but we’ll offer some steps to take in using qualitative methods, including some guidelines for doing interviews and observations, the two most common methods. (Most of these guidelines hold equally for using quantitative methods as well.)

Start by deciding what it is you want to know.

You may remember that this is also one of the guidelines for qualitative reliability. It may seem elementary, but it doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as it ought to. The importance of deciding what you want to know is that it determines the character of your assessment – what kinds of questions you ask, whom you ask them of, how you’ll go about it, etc. Without that minimal amount of structure, you’re likely to wind up with a confused and unorganized mass of information.

There are many ways to approach a community assessment, and, consequently, many questions you might choose to start your assessment with. You might even use more than one, but it’s important to be clear about exactly what you’re looking for.

Some possibilities:

• What is the most serious issue – either general or specific – the community faces (i.e., what should we turn our attention to?)
• What services are most needed in the community? Who most needs them?
• Are people taking advantage of services that currently exist?
• What are the community’s significant assets? How can they be strengthened?
• Are there forces working against the well-being of the community that should be addressed? If so, what are they and how are they affecting the community?
• Who ought to be involved in a prospective coalition or initiative?

Choose the method best suited to finding the information you’re looking for.

If you want to learn about people’s public behavior, you might use direct observation. Observing activity in a clinic waiting room, for example, might give you information about patterns of interaction, use of the space, or how people respond to the setting. Be cautious about inferring people’s feelings, motivations, or parenting practices from observation alone.

If you want to know people’s opinions or how they feel about issues, some type of interview would be appropriate.

Once you’ve chosen the right method, it’s important to carry it out properly. Be aware of what you can do with the resources you have. You can’t conduct thousands of interviews in a large city, for instance, without considerable resources. If you’re a cash-strapped nonprofit, you might look for a grant to fund your interviews, or you might confine your assessment to one neighborhood. Perhaps you’d mobilize and train volunteers to conduct interviews, or interview groups rather than individuals. It’s better to do a limited community assessment well than a large one badly.

In choosing your method, be aware also that, in some cases, quantitative methods may be more appropriate and more likely to tell you what you want to know.

Choose the people who will gather the information, and, if necessary, train them.

With qualitative methods, where contact is often personal, the question of who carries them out can be very important. Researchers who are perceived as outsiders may sometimes find it harder to build trust or gather complete information, particularly when differences in language, culture, class, or experience are important in the setting. In some cases, it makes sense to train community members or others who are known and trusted by the people being asked to contribute their opinions and observations.

Data collectors should be able to communicate effectively with the people they are interviewing and understand relevant cultural context. If you’re assessing commercial activity in a neighborhood with a large Hispanic/Latino population, for example, Spanish-language ability or qualified interpretation may be important, along with familiarity with the particular community being studied. Avoid assuming that all people who share a broad ethnic or linguistic label have the same cultural practices or experiences.

If you recruit members of the community or of a specific population to do qualitative information gathering – because they relate to the population better, because they speak the language, because you’re engaged in a participatory effort, or simply because you think they’ll be good at it – you should provide them with training to help make the information they collect consistent and useful. Depending on what kinds of methods they’ll be using, some of the elements of a training might be:

• What to record and how: It may not be obvious how important it is to record the time, place, details, and circumstances of an interview, observation, focus group, or larger meeting. It may also be necessary, depending on a trainee’s experience, to learn to use recording equipment appropriately, obtain any necessary consent, and/or take efficient notes without losing the thread of the conversation or missing important points in an observation.
• Interview techniques, as well as exactly what purpose an interview serves, and how it fits into the larger assessment picture. The more clearly an interviewer understands not just what to do and how, but why they’re doing it, the better they’re likely to be at drawing out useful information.
• Observation techniques: As with an interview, an observation will be far more useful if the observer understands not just what to do and how to do it, but exactly why they’re doing it, and how the information will be used.
• Training in other methods: Focus groups, for instance, require specific skills and techniques.
• Training in how to think of themselves as researchers: Like those engaged in community-based participatory research, information gatherers should understand how researchers operate. Attention to detail, curiosity, reflection on one’s own assumptions, and the continuous processing of information in order to generate the next question or observation are all part of the investigative mindset, which they should be encouraged to develop.

Determine from whom or from where you need to gather information.

It may be that you want to hear from all sectors of the community, but some issues or circumstances demand more specific informants. Some possible interview subjects may be public officials, members of a specific population or cultural group, people from a particular geographic area, or people with certain characteristics (parents of young children, individuals with disabilities, men ages 18-24, people with high blood pressure).

Knowing whom you need to ask extends to any method in which you talk directly to people – focus groups, large community meetings, etc. Focus groups used by marketers are chosen carefully, for example, with age, gender, income, place of residence, and other characteristics considered depending on the question being studied.

Observation may or may not involve people. If it does, the question may not be whom you want to observe, but rather what activity or situation you want to observe. If it’s general – what kinds of street activity take place in various neighborhoods, how people use a public park – it’s not necessary to focus on a particular population, but rather on the place. If it’s more specific – back to commercial activity in that neighborhood with a large Hispanic/Latino population – you’ll need to be in the right place at the right time.

Gather the information.

Now it’s time for you or the people you’ve chosen to go out and collect the qualitative information you need.

Interviews

As mentioned above, interviews can be structured or unstructured. In a strictly structured interview, the same questions in the same order are asked of everyone, with relatively little room for wandering off the specific topic. Semi-structured interviews may also be based on a list of specific questions, but – while trying to make sure that the interviewee answers all of them – the interviewer may pursue interesting avenues, or encourage the interviewee to talk about other related issues. An unstructured interview is likely to be more relaxed – more like a conversation than a formal interview.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. A structured interview may help keep the interview focused and make responses easier to compare because everyone is asked the same core questions. It may also make some interviewees nervous or limit opportunities to explain experiences in their own terms.

A semi- or unstructured interview may allow the interviewee to be more relaxed, and thus more forthcoming. It also leaves room for pursuing a topic that’s not directly related to the formal list of questions, but that might be important or even crucial. At the same time, because it can be far-ranging, information from semi- or unstructured interviews may be harder to compare across interviewees. In the hands of an inexperienced or indecisive interviewer, the conversation may also get sidetracked and never get back to the original questions.

What kind of interview you use depends on the nature of the information you’re looking for, the needs of the people you’re interviewing, and your own experience and comfort. The author has conducted all three types of interviews, and has found that semi-structured interviews – having clear questions and goals for the interview, but conducting it in an informal way, with room for pursuing tangents and some simple friendly conversation – are generally productive. The following guidelines for interviewing reflect that view.

• Ask the interviewee to help choose the space. You might give them a range of suggestions – their home or workplace, the office of a human service agency, a neutral space such as a café or a park, or another appropriate setting – and go with a choice that works for both of you. The more comfortable and private the setting is, the better and more informative the interview is likely to be.
• Choose your clothing with the setting and interviewee in mind. Clothing can send messages about formality, status, and expectations. Try to dress in a way that fits the setting and helps create a comfortable, respectful interaction rather than drawing unnecessary attention to differences between you and the interviewee.
• Talk beforehand with the interviewee if you’re planning to record or photograph the interview. Get permission before you show up with equipment It’s common courtesy, and it’s less likely to start the interview off awkwardly.

If the results of the interview are likely to be published or otherwise shared, explain how the information will be used and whether the interviewee will be identified. Depending on the purpose of the assessment and the setting in which it is being conducted, written informed consent may be appropriate or required.

• Record carefully the time, place, circumstances, and relevant details of the interview. This can include a description of the setting, other people present, distractions, and other factors that may have influenced the interview. Record only personal or demographic details that are relevant to the assessment, and protect information that could identify participants.
• Think out and frame your questions carefully, and ask directly for the information you’re seeking. Know your basic questions well enough that you can refer to notes as little as possible. Make your questions clear and unambiguous, so that they aren’t vague or difficult to understand.
• Ask open-ended questions. These are questions that invite a fuller answer, rather than a yes-no response. For example, instead of asking "Did you enjoy being in the program?" you might ask "What was participating in the program like?" Try to give people the chance to answer as fully and thoughtfully as possible.
• Probe. Ask follow-up questions to understand more clearly what people mean, or to keep them talking about a topic. ("Why did you like it when the teacher asked your opinion?") Don't be afraid to pursue what may seem to be a sidetrack. Sometimes the best or most important information lies off the beaten path.

Some interviewees can manage one-word answers to nearly any question. They might answer "What was participating in the program like?" with “Good.” Don’t be afraid to probe these answers. “What does that mean?” or “How was it good?” might get you a flood of information. If it gets you another one-word answer, you can try another prompt, unless you sense that the person is getting uncomfortable, frustrated, or simply doesn’t want to say more. Then it’s probably time to move on. Be aware that people differ in how much they want to talk and how they prefer to express themselves.

• Don't cut people off too quickly. Their stories, or the context surrounding what they tell you, may give you information as important as their direct answers.

At the same time, be aware when they’ve strayed too far from the topic. There’s a Mark Twain story that consists of the voice of a man telling an anecdote about a three-legged dog. Every other word reminds him of something else – another story – and he gets continually sidetracked, never finishing the story of the dog, or any of the others, either. Beware the Curse of the Three-Legged Dog: gently but firmly direct people back to the topic if they get too far afield.

• Compare what you're told with other sources to the extent that you can. People may remember or interpret the same event differently. In Rashomon, a film by the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, an incident is described from the perspectives of four participants, each of whom sees it totally differently. In fact, the phenomenon of Rashomon lurks everywhere; gathering multiple perspectives can help you understand both where accounts agree and where they differ.

Group interviews are both similar to and different from individual ones. The basic guidelines – being clear what you’re asking, open-ended questions, probing, etc. – still hold, but the group brings its own dynamic to the situation. The interview becomes more of a group discussion, and the interviewer’s concerns must extend to making sure that everyone gets heard, reining in individuals who dominate the discussion, and keeping the focus on ideas and information, rather than personalities.

As with other methods, group interviews have advantages and disadvantages. The former include using the energy of the group to generate information that might not otherwise emerge. Members may stimulate one another to come up with more and more useful material, as their thinking is prodded by the memories and conclusions of others. They can also compare or question one another’s accounts. In addition, the presence of other, often familiar, interviewees may help some participants feel more comfortable talking. The skills of the interviewer at creating a respectful and welcoming environment are important here.

With these potential positives come the possible negatives of conflict, antagonism, or difficult history among group members, as well as other feelings or relationships that can disrupt or shape discussion. There are also problems that can arise from members of the group being very familiar with one another: they may spend too much time in chit-chat, or shared assumptions may go unexplained because everyone in the group already understands them.

Group interviews may be useful when resources – and, as a result, interviewers – are limited, or when there are a large number of people who should be, or would like to be, interviewed. Group size should be manageable enough that everyone has an opportunity to participate, and interviewers should have, or be trained in, basic group facilitation skills.

Observation

What do we mean by “observation?” For our purposes, there are essentially two kinds: direct and participant observation.

Direct observation is the practice of examining or watching places, people, or activity without actively taking part in what’s going on. A direct observation to see how people use a public park, for instance, might consist of one or more observers simply sitting in one place or walking around the park for several hours, or even several days. Observers might come back at different times of day, on different days, or at different times of year, in order to understand as much as possible of what goes on in the park. Depending on the purpose and ethical requirements of the assessment, they might also ask questions of people using the park.

Observation can raise privacy and ethical concerns, especially when people could reasonably expect that their activities are private or when identifiable information is being collected. In these instances, ethics generally demands that the observer obtain the permission of those being observed.

In laboratory schools, for instance, where teachers are trained and new educational ideas tested, classes may be observed from designated observation spaces. In such cases, teachers, parents, students, or others involved are informed according to the policies and consent requirements that apply to the setting.

Participant observation involves becoming to some extent part of the life of the people you’re observing – learning about and taking part in their culture, celebrations, rituals, or everyday activities. A participant observer in the park above might join activities they observe – a regular volleyball game, winter cross-country skiing, dog walking, in-line skating – and get to know the people who engage in those activities. They would also monitor their own feelings and reactions to using the park, in order to understand how their position may influence what they notice and how they interpret it. They would probably ask lots of questions, and in many situations would identify themselves as a researcher.

An effective participant observer may take a long time to build the relationships and understanding needed for this kind of work. There are exceptions, of course. Some researchers or organizations conduct shorter-term participant observation when the setting allows it. It often helps greatly if the observer is already familiar with the group or setting being studied, although familiarity can bring its own assumptions that also need to be examined.

Both direct and participant observation can be useful in community assessment. Participant observation may require more time and relationship-building, while direct observation may be easier to use for a shorter assessment.

Regardless of its type, your observation should be conducted carefully and systematically.

Some guidelines for reaching that goal:

• Think carefully about the questions you want your observation to answer. You may be looking at people’s behavior or interactions in a given place or situation, or the nature of social, physical, or environmental conditions in a particular place or circumstance. If you’re clear about what you want to find out, you can structure your observation to get the best information.
• Where and whom should you observe to answer these questions? Choose places, situations, and populations that are actually relevant to the question you’re trying to answer rather than assuming that observations in one setting will represent people or conditions elsewhere.
• When and for how long should observation take place? Observing commercial activity downtown on Sunday morning won’t give you a full picture of what it’s actually like throughout the week. You’d need to observe at both busy and slow times, and over a period of time, to get a better idea of the amount, intensity, and character of commercial activity.

What should you observe and record? That depends on the questions you’re trying to answer, but some basics include:

• The physical characteristics of the setting(s), including weather, if outdoors.
• The time of day, week, and year.

• Relevant observable characteristics of the people involved, while avoiding unnecessary assumptions about personal characteristics that cannot be known reliably through observation alone.

  Clothing and appearance can sometimes provide useful context, but they should be described rather than automatically treated as evidence of a person’s attitudes, identity, income, or world view. The meaning of clothing or style varies among people, communities, and situations.

• The activities, events, and/or places or circumstances observed, and a description of each.
• The nature of interactions among people.
• Observable behavior that may help you understand how people are responding to a place, situation, activity, or event. Be cautious about assigning emotions or motives based only on appearance.

• The physical and social (unobserved, detached, participant, etc.) position of the observer.

  At a neighborhood festival, for instance, an observer could be watching from a window high above the street, from a position just at the edge of the crowd, from within the crowd and the festival goings-on, as a participant in a festival activity, or even as a festival volunteer or organizer. What they would see and hear, what they would experience, and the information they would obtain would be different from each of these viewpoints.

• The observer’s own responses and attitudes, including the physical and psychological comfort of the observation. These should be recorded separately from direct observations so that you can distinguish what happened from how you interpreted or reacted to it.

How do you record observations? That depends on the nature of the observation and on your resources. Video or audio recording may change people’s behavior and can raise privacy or consent concerns, depending on the setting. In many cases, observation is recorded through written or digital field notes. If recording during the observation would be disruptive or inappropriate, you’d probably wait until after you had left the situation – but as soon after as possible, so as not to forget or confuse details.

Analyze the information.

Once you’ve gathered information by whatever qualitative method, you have to figure out what it tells you. Some of that may be fairly clear: if you’ve been interested in who uses that public park we were talking about earlier, and your observation suggests that it’s mostly young people during the times you observed, you have some information relevant to your initial question. Your next questions may be why other groups don’t use the park as much, whether use differs at other times, and whether the fact that it’s largely used by young people affects who else uses it. When you’ve answered those questions, you may have generated others, or you may have a basis for planning efforts to make the park useful and welcoming to more people.

Make and carry out a plan to address the issue or problem you’ve identified or were concerned with.

The final step here is to use the information and analysis that came from your use of qualitative methods to help improve the community. Assessment is most useful when it informs decisions, planning, or action intended to create positive change.

In Summary

Qualitative methods of gathering information – methods such as interviews, observation, focus groups, and community meetings that don’t always yield results that can be reduced to numbers, or that are used to capture a level of information difficult to get with quantitative methods – are often extremely useful in community assessment, especially when used together with quantitative methods, which do give numerical results. Qualitative methods can get at the things that numbers don’t, such as the reasons for people’s actions, experiences, perspectives, or community history. They can help to identify community issues and needs, and provide a basis for planning community efforts that lead to long-term change.