In a time of intense societal division, understanding across groups feels frustratingly out of reach. It’s not just differing opinions – we face a deep disconnect in grasping each other’s experiences, motivations and struggles, hindering our ability to respond to social issues and move social policy forward.

Data can play a critical role in bridging this divide, yet research and policy are dominated by quantitative data. If we are ever going to bridge these rapidly widening gaps, narrative and numerical data must be used in tandem to build empathy, convey meaning, and foster true understanding.

Relying on one methodological source tells only a fragment of a multifaceted story and limits our ability to develop right-sized solutions. This is particularly relevant in the climate under the current administration, where the value of science and research is being actively scrutinized and challenged.

Reading that 6.5 million households with children faced food insecurity in 2023 does not always move the needle in the same way as hearing a woman who has spent her whole life struggling to make ends meet sharing, “I spent a lot of my childhood not having food … not having means to cook, not having food to make a sandwich … I learned to live off of one meal a day.”

This depth of experience offers a window into the lives of those at the center of the issues we seek to address. Research has shown that qualitative data has the power to distill down what was found in aggregate data into the everyday experience. That equips decision-makers to arrive at more effective solutions that can better reflect the nuance of lived experiences.

Qualitative research uncovers the “why”

Using methods like interviews, focus groups and ethnography, qualitative research seeks to answer the “why” and “how” behind people’s experiences and behavior. It provides essential context and nuance that quantitative data alone often lacks. Without understanding the mechanisms behind social phenomena, data can easily be misinterpreted or oversimplified.

Consider Yasmin, a participant in the OpenResearch Unconditional Cash Study. Her survey responses showed she became unemployed soon after she began receiving the cash transfer, but told nothing of why. Without further context, one might assume she quit out of laziness — a common misconception about cash transfers and one that has driven legislation against such programs.

Qualitative interviews with Yasmin revealed an entirely different story. Yasmin left her job to pursue online courses and start a business as a credit repair specialist and tax preparer. Like the many Black women in the study who launched their own businesses, she was motivated by the need for flexible work hours. A single mother with minimal childcare support, she explained to researchers that she needed to find work that aligned with her daughter’s school schedule.

Together, quantitative and qualitative methods provide a more comprehensive picture of what is happening and why. This integration helps researchers validate findings, minimize bias, and avoid misinterpretation. Rather than drawing false conclusions about Yasmin’s situation, researchers were able to better understand how rigid work structures often fail women balancing family responsibilities.

Elevating qualitative research in policy discussions

Despite these demonstrated benefits, quantitative methods continue to dominate social policy research. Qualitative research is too often dismissed as anecdotal or treated as an optional add-on to quantitative research — like the B-side of an album.

This devaluing of qualitative research has serious consequences.

Just look at the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where prediction models overwhelmingly favored Clinton. After Trump’s victory, researchers turned to qualitative research to understand what went wrong. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild had conducted extensive interviews with conservative voters and uncovered a narrative of feeling alienated by the political elite. Her research helped explain the critical sentiments that contributed to Trump’s unexpected victory, missed entirely by quantitative models.

Another example is the Moving to Opportunity experiment, which aimed to test whether relocating low-income families to wealthier areas would improve their outcomes. Though expectations were high, many considered the quantitative results surprisingly underwhelming, showing minimal improvements in employment, education, and income for adults and children. Qualitative interviews provided crucial context for understanding these results: social isolation, discrimination, and difficulties maintaining connections to support networks like childcare and transportation all hindered families’ progress.

Recognizing the rigor of qualitative research

The devaluation of qualitative research partly stems from a number of misconceptions that are held even by fellow researchers — that it’s a “soft science,” that it’s purely descriptive, that it lacks rigor. One contributor recalls an economist dismissively saying to her, “Can I just flip through some transcripts and pull quotes for this paper?”

Qualitative methodologies are rooted in theoretical frameworks, analytical techniques, and strategic design of tools such as interview protocols or focus group questions. They’re also the oldest scientific method we have. Some of the seminal works that shaped the behavioral and social sciences are qualitative studies. Even the early collection of our U.S. census used qualitative methodologies in its counting systems. In fact, we didn’t begin to quantify human behavior through statistical analysis until the 1960s.

The reality is that data come from a variety of methodological sources, and we can’t afford to steer away from that breadth and depth, especially when research and the sciences are under attack. As mixed methodologists, we are trained to ground every number in narrative data and to attach every narrative to an aggregate experience. It is our responsibility, as trained methodologists, to communicate both the fullness and limitations of each method. Unfortunately, the research community has strayed from this essential practice.

Create gaps in our knowledge

These stereotypes also contribute to its underfunding. From 2014 to 2022, only 11% of Russell Sage Foundation grants supported qualitative studies — a trend mirrored across other institutions. Because women are overrepresented in qualitative research, this funding disparity further entrenches gender gaps in research funding and publication opportunities. This issue of equity is particularly critical in the face of federal attacks on DEI initiatives and the threat of pulling funds from any research even loosely associated with mitigating the challenges marginalized groups face.

We must acknowledge the true value of qualitative research — and the need to fund it. Qualitative research is essential for developing effective policies, particularly for marginalized groups whose experiences are often overlooked. Yet political pressures are increasingly threatening research focused on equity. Recently, researchers on federally-funded projects have reported being told to remove terms like “equity” and “inequity” from their proposals and reports. Such directives not only erase the language needed to describe systemic issues, but also hinder research aimed at addressing the needs of marginalized communities. If this trend continues, it will create massive knowledge gaps that render policies ineffective for those they aim to serve, harming society at large.

Now is the time to advocate for research that highlights lived experiences and elevates voices from marginalized communities. As famed activist and author Audre Lorde put it: “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” We cannot use singular methodological approaches to understand our complex lives. By equally prioritizing qualitative research in policy discussions, we not only build greater empathy but also ensure that policies are informed by the complex issues they are meant to address. In today’s divided world, this work is more vital than ever.

This post was originally published on Next City.