Yeah so this is a problematic understanding of qualitative research and a disappointing takeaway to say the least. Qualitative research includes many tools for data collection as well as data analysis. 1/ https://twitter.com/_Jon_Green/status/1326177181442199557

Focus groups are a tool for data collection. I invite expert scholars of the method to chime in ( @policentrica) but my understanding is that no, it's not just a different way to do a survey. 2/

And like any other data collection tool, it is likely
enhanced by contextual knowledge and additional sources of data. But qualitative research is also a form of analysis that takes seriously fine-grained knowledge used to *interpret* data. 3/

A good qual researcher would seek understanding of silences, hesitations, and patterns that emerge as Lee Ann Fujii put it, in the meta-data of interviews. Interview data isn't interpretable in rows of a spreadsheet the way surveys are (of course you can code it that way) 4/

It is how it comes together to point us toward processes and pathways that generate outcomes of interest. And at the same time it can parse where alternative processes do *not* come together to generate the same outcome. 5/

Qual research often relies on building trust through networks of connection. To suggest that qual researchers just call people at random and achieve access to their intentions and preferences is just so off the mark. /fin