Hiroka Mita: Interview Surveys and Real Voices

In political science research, which forms the foundation of public policy and local government, there are quantitative and qualitative research methods. A common criticism of qualitative research is that the number of cases handled is small, making it difficult to generalize from the details of individual cases. This is certainly a valid point, and I do not intend to deny it. However, I believe there are things that can only be gained through qualitative research.

One of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research is the number of cases targeted (the N-number). Qualitative research primarily uses process tracing to make inferences about a small number of cases or a single case. It considers the case (the result) and traces back to its causes. In contrast, quantitative research primarily targets a large number of cases, using statistical analysis to make inferences about a population and showing how factors thought to be causes influenced the results. Furthermore, qualitative research focuses on the processes related to the cases, sometimes comparing changes over time to infer causal relationships. Quantitative research often differs in that it compares a wide range of cases at the same point in time to infer causal relationships.

In other words, I believe the strengths of qualitative research lie in cases where one wants to clarify the chronological process by which a phenomenon occurred, or when a phenomenon is rare but represents an important case and one wants to clarify why it happened, or when one wants to understand the relationship between changes in stakeholder (actor) involvement and the phenomenon.

For example, there are cases such as comparing the factors behind the abolition of earmarked tax revenues for roads—which were also used for local road development—and their conversion into general revenues, by looking at the changes in actors and systems surrounding the cabinet that made the decision. There are also cases of analyzing factors in the process of public works reform or regional public transport reform in a small number of pioneering local governments, or the process by which landscape ordinances were enacted or decisions hindering the landscape were made. In such cases, information on the background, local government organizational structure, and relationships between actors is obtained through interview surveys with the relevant actors to uncover the factors behind the decisions.

In qualitative research using interview surveys, the number of cases handled is small, but this allows for a thorough investigation of the content of each case, clarifying the processes and actor motivations that cannot be understood through numbers alone. I also believe there is the advantage of being able to reflect the real voices obtained from meeting stakeholders and the conflicts leading up to the decision-making process within the case analysis.