QUAL paper Flashcards
Ethical concerns
Transparency: There is no mention of the specific approval reference number, or whether participants were provided with detailed informed consent forms. Were participants explicitly informed about their right to withdraw, the handling of sensitive data, or the potential implications of discussing personal insomnia-related struggles in a group setting? These omissions raise concerns about the robustness of ethical oversight.
Confidentiality in Focus Groups: Focus groups involve shared discussions, making it impossible to guarantee full confidentiality. While the authors told participants that the discussions would remain confidential, they did not elaborate on how confidentiality could be maintained, especially since others in the group could potentially disclose shared details outside the research setting. This is an inherent ethical risk in focus groups that should have been explicitly addressed
challenges of using IPA
While IPA is a valuable method for exploring subjective experiences, it has notable limitations when used in focus groups:
Focus on Individual Lived Experience: IPA is designed to delve deeply into individual perspectives, capturing the essence of personal meaning-making. However, in a focus group setting, individuals’ narratives may become influenced by group dynamics. Participants might conform to dominant voices in the group or suppress their genuine thoughts due to social desirability or fear of judgment. This compromises the richness and authenticity of data, which is a core aim of IPA.
Researcher Bias in Group Facilitation: The facilitator’s role becomes critical in focus groups. Minimal direction was given to participants, but the use of “open-ended, fixed questions” could have unintentionally steered discussions. IPA is interpretative, meaning the researcher’s own perspective influences the analysis. In focus groups, this interpretative role could be doubly complicated by needing to disentangle group interactions from individual viewpoints.
Palmer et al. (2010) argue that IPA is better suited to one-on-one interviews, as focus groups can introduce complexities such as social desirability and group influence, which make it difficult to isolate individual interpretations in line with IPA’s goals.
sampling concerns
Homogeneity of Sample: While IPA works best with small, homogenous groups, the sample in this study spans a wide age range (20–64 years) and both genders. These variations could lead to differing experiences and priorities, potentially diluting the specificity and depth of insights into insomnia. IPA’s strength lies in focusing on a narrow, well-defined group, which seems partially compromised here.
Small Sample Size: Only 11 participants were recruited for the focus groups, and 8 for the audio diary (AD) component (no mention to why? questionable research practcies). While small samples are typical for IPA, this number may limit the generalizability and robustness of the findings, especially given the heterogeneity of the sample.
Size of Focus Groups: The group sizes (4, 4, and 3 participants) are smaller than the recommended size for focus groups (typically 6–12 participants for dynamic discussions). Smaller groups may limit the diversity of viewpoints, reduce interactional dynamics, and impact the breadth of the data collected.
Evening Timing: Focus groups were held in the evening, potentially introducing fatigue or mood variations among participants, which could affect their engagement and responses.
issue with audio diary
Participant Compliance: The success of ADs depends on participants’ commitment to consistently recording detailed, reflective entries. There is no mention of whether the authors monitored compliance or how they handled missing or inconsistent data.
Recall Bias: Although ADs aim to reduce recall bias, participants were still asked to reflect on their experiences several hours after events (e.g., the evening entries about daily experiences). This delay could still allow for memory distortions.
Random Selection for ADs: The random selection of 8 participants for ADs is methodologically unclear. Did the random allotment ensure diversity in terms of demographics and experiences? Random selection risks excluding important voices, such as those with extreme experiences of insomnia.
issue with analytical approach
Reliability Checks: While a sleep psychologist reviewed the themes for transparency, the study lacks detail on how disagreements were resolved. Were there multiple rounds of discussion? Was an independent reviewer involved to enhance reliability?
does not tell us how? an ‘expertt? who????????
issues with quantifying qualitative analysis
reduces trustworthiness of paper
Misalignment with IPA Philosophy:
IPA focuses on understanding the meaning and lived experience of participants, not on numerical patterns or frequency. Its goal is to explore the richness of individual perspectives, emphasizing depth over breadth. Counting occurrences of themes or responses can reduce the complexity of participants’ narratives, which may dilute the interpretative nature of the analysis.
Reporting the number of words transcribed (e.g., 38,600 for FG discussions and 17,600 for AD entries) may imply that the quantity of data collected correlates with the depth or quality of analysis. This is misleading because the value of IPA lies in the depth of exploration of individual experiences, not the amount of data generated.
By emphasizing word counts, the study risks giving the impression that longer transcripts equate to better or more comprehensive insights, which is not necessarily true in qualitative research.
ALSO makes us concerned for how much data was transcribed
How did one researcher conduct a focus group AND make notes?
issue with the focus groups
Having one researcher facilitate the focus group and simultaneously take notes is highly problematic. Focus group facilitation demands full attention to group dynamics, ensuring participants are engaged and their responses probed in depth. Taking notes during the session divides attention, leading to missed opportunities to explore key insights and manage quieter participants. Additionally, note-taking introduces potential bias, as the facilitator may focus on themes that align with their preconceptions, compromising the authenticity and richness of the data. The study should have included a co-moderator or assistant to record observations, allowing the facilitator to fully engage with participants. This limitation risks weakening the rigor and depth required for IPA, where nuanced and interpretative analysis is essential.
how did they come up with the questions? Kestinger 1995, this paper was 15 years old when they used this, outdated recommendations?
further issues with IPA
smith 2004- IPA is ‘idiographic’
Dowling 2007- focus groups for IPA can never be truly phenomenological
- Loss of Individual Depth
Core Focus of IPA: IPA is idiographic, meaning it prioritizes a detailed exploration of individual experiences and perspectives.
Problem with Focus Groups: In focus groups, discussions are shaped by group dynamics, making it difficult to isolate and deeply explore individual perspectives. The richness and depth of personal experience, which IPA aims to capture, may be diluted as participants respond to group interactions rather than reflecting solely on their own experience. - Influence of Group Dynamics
IPA Assumes Individual Reflection: IPA relies on participants providing introspective and thoughtful accounts of their experiences.
Problem in Focus Groups: Group dynamics, such as dominance by outspoken participants or conformity pressures, can influence individual responses, leading participants to censor or alter their views. This compromises the authenticity of personal accounts that IPA seeks to analyze. - Difficulties with Double Hermeneutics
IPA’s Interpretative Process: IPA involves the researcher interpreting how participants make sense of their own experiences (the “double hermeneutic”).
Problem in Focus Groups: In a group setting, participants’ narratives are often co-constructed through interaction with others, making it hard for the researcher to disentangle individual sense-making from the collective group discussion. This complicates the interpretative process central to IPA. - Lack of Homogeneity
IPA Prefers Homogeneous Samples: IPA often works best with small, homogeneous samples to explore nuanced experiences shared by participants.
Problem with Focus Groups: Focus groups often bring together participants with varying perspectives to stimulate discussion, which can detract from IPA’s goal of examining nuanced, shared experiences in depth.
the whole part
What is the hermeneutic circle?
It’s a process of analysis where researchers move back and forth between understanding smaller parts (like a specific text, episode, or detail) and the larger whole (like a full account, a complete life, or an overall meaning). This dynamic helps researchers reflect more deeply and holistically on human experiences.
Why is this important in qualitative psychology?
It allows for a deeper understanding by examining how individual parts contribute to the whole and how the whole shapes the meaning of its parts. This “back-and-forth” process is central to many types of qualitative analysis.
In phenomenological research (like IPA), this method is used to explore how individual experiences (parts) fit into the broader context of shared human experiences (the whole).
What about focus groups?
In group research, this part-whole relationship becomes more complex because researchers must analyze both individual contributions and the dynamics of the group as a whole. Choosing what to focus on (“unit of analysis”) can be challenging.
method advantages
methodological plurism-
Methodological pluralism is an approach in research and inquiry that emphasizes the use of multiple methodologies,
Provides a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues.
Reduces bias by integrating multiple viewpoints.
was qual approapriate
Qual was appropriate for the goal of undertanding lived experiences
However, the aim of the study was not clear- there was no research aims or question and the actual aim was not well conveyed.
Used the word characterised, very quant approach to a qual method
other issues
called participants subjects
‘random allotment’?
lack of clarity on how data analysis was driven out
no familiarisation from the data? no mention to where the themes came from!
