Qualitative Methods Flashcards
PSYCHOLOGY DEFINITION
- strongly shaped by behavioural/cognitive traditions
- within such approaches psychology should seek to understand/determine observable/objective (universal) psychological reality
- qualitative approaches re-emerged around 1980s
THE QUALITATIVE PARADIGM SHIFT
- reflected researchers rejecting idea of observable/independent (singular & universal) reality aka. responding to external/internal influences
- person was theorised as operating within subjective/interpreted world w/an organisation offering a certain version of reality
- relationship between person/context was seen as more fluid/reciprocal w/influence in both directions
DEBATES IN RESEARCH
BRAUN & CLARKE (2013)
- development of oppositional approaches within social sciences challenging positivist approach including:
1) feminism
2) post-structuralism
3) post-modernism
4) social constructionism
5) hermeneutics
6) phenomenology
- approaches argued qualitative methods were crucial for identifying dif constructed versions of reality allowing access to people’s subjective worlds/marginalised groups
- qualitative paradigm can be an explicit rejection of quantitative approached (not just alternative)
NON-POSITIVIST QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PARADIGM
- no 1 correct version of reality/knowledge
- argues there are multiple versions of reality (even for same person)
- bound by context in which they happen/are created
- most qualitative researchers would argue you shouldn’t/mustn’t consider knowledge outside context in which it was generated
BODY IMAGE RESEARCH
- you cannot look at how women/men feel about their bodies w/o looking at wider society context
- research suggests that men are generally more resilient to internalising negative body image emotions having viewed #fitspiration images on insta -> wider social context/discourse
QUALITATIVE PARADIGM ELEMENTS (SILVERMAN (2000))
- use of qualitative data/analysis of words which aren’t reducible to numbers
- use of more “naturally” occurring data collection methods more closely resembling real life (compared to other possibilities ie. experiments); develops from idea that we cannot make sense of data isolated from context
- interest in meanings > reports/measures of beh/internal cognitions
- use of inductive/theory-generating research
- rejection of natural sciences as research model incl. rejection of the objective/unbiased scientist
- recognition that researchers bring subjectivity (views/perspectives/frameworks for making sense of world/politics/passions) into research process
- strength NOT weakness
QUANTITATIVE DATA (TOLICH & DAVIDSON (2003))
- numbers used as data
- seeks to identify relationships between variables to explain/predict w/aim of generalising findings to wider population
- generates shallow BUT broad data; not much complex detail obtained from each pp BUT lots of pps take part to generate necessary stat power
- seeks consensus/norms/general patterns; oft aims to reduce diversity of responses to average response
- theory-testing & deductive
- values detachment/impartiality
- has fixed method (harder to change focus once data collection begins)
- sometimes completed quickly
QUALITATIVE DATA (TOLICH & DAVIDSON (2003))
- words (written/spoken language)/images as data
- seeks to understand/interpret more local meanings; recognises data as gathered in context; sometimes produces knowledge contributing to more general understandings
- generates narrow BUT rich data w/thick descriptions aka. detailed/complex accounts from each pp BUT not many take part
- seeks patterns BUT accommodates/explores difs/divergence within data
- theory generating & inductive aka. working up from data
- values personal involvement/partiality aka. subjectivity/reflexivity
- less fixed method; can accommodate shift in focus in same study
- tends to take longer to complete as it’s interpretative w/no formula
DIFFERENT WAYS OF COLLECTING DATA
NATURALLY OCCURRING
INTERVIEWS
FOCUS GROUPS
ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY SOURCES
OBSERVATIONAL TECHNIQUES
INTERVIEWS
- structured
- semi-structured/unstructured
- individual VS joint (ie. couple)
- ethnographic
- walking/drawing/sensory
ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY SOURCES
- diaries (audio/video/written)
- texts
- books (ie. auto-biographies)
- news/documents
- social media/online chat groups/webpages
OBSERVATIONAL TECHNIQUES
- pp VS non-pp
- check for non-verbal cues
- observe interactions/beh
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT
NARAYANASAMY (2002)
- primary way to best capture pps lived experience
DAALEMAN ET AL. (2001)
- selected qualitative method to gain richer/more complete description
LYONS ET AL. (2002)
- illuminate factors absent in (quantitative/correlational) existing lit
STUCKEY (2018)
- “if we don’t understand context in which person is living/under what social/beh constraints then we cannot know hot to treat them”
BIG Q (CLARKE (2018))
- application of qualitative techniques within qualitative paradigm markedly dif to quantitative approach aka:
1) reflective
2) interpretative
3) immersion in data
4) fluidity contrast
SMALL Q (CLARKE (2018))
- using qualitative data collection/techniques
- not necessarily in qualitative paradigm
- positivist sensibility
- qualitative techniques BUT not philosophy
BIGGISH Q (CLARKE (2018))
- sits in middle of small/big Q
- more structured/less fluid than big Q BUT more flexibility/more in line w/qualitative philosophy
- oft used in applied research
DEFINING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH SPHERE
- qualitative/quantitative research approaches can be fundamentally dif/opposed
- but they aren’t necessarily
- mixed method approaches aka. biggish Q
- methodological triangulation = combination of several research methodologies/ways of data collection/analysis in 1 study
- quantitative methodologies highlight trends/causal relations BUT qualitative methodologies provide context/meaning
- here triangulation helps cancel out “method effect” & increases confidence in findings
INDUCTION & QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
- reality = socially constructed; social world consists of multiple subjective realities > single objective reality; it’s too complex to lend itself to theorising about definite laws
- interpretivists seek to understand pps’ subjective realities in ways meaningful to pps
INDUCTIVE APPROACH - bottom-up
- collection of data to develop theory
THE INDUCTIVE APPROACH
- moving from data to theory
- understanding the meanings humans attach to events
- close understanding of research context
- qualitative data collection
- flexible structure to permit changes of research emphasis as research progresses
- realisation that researcher is part of research process
- less concern w/need to generalise
QUALITATIVE APPROACHES: SIMILARITIES
- concern w/meaning/experience
- focus on “subjective”
- degree of reflexivity
- treatment of “text” (ie. critical language awareness)
- role of researcher
QUALITATIVE APPROACHES: DIFFERENCES
- epistemological position
- focus on research question/agenda
- analytic process
INTERVIEW PURPOSES
- therapeutic
- employment selection
- news
- marketing
- research
STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
- collect info about facts/attitudes/beliefs/behs
- directive/scripted/standardised interview schedule (ie. everyone is asked same qs; you don’t deviate from guide); used in large scale surveys
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
- non-standardised
- non-directive
- flexible list of themes/questions
UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
- non-standardised
- non-directive
- in-depth exploration of an area
SEMI-STRUCTURED & UNSTRUCTURED
- qualitative data gathering techniques designed to obtain info about pps’ views/opinions/experiences
- interviews are oft interviewee orientated/guided
- when exploring sensitive topics trust/rapport can be established in 1-on-1 interviews
- aka. useful where structured surveys don’t work
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
- “guided conversations”
- we may not always know the path that interview will take BUT this is a methodology strength
- BUT interviewers must stick to interview purpose so respondent doesn’t veer off on a tangential path
PREPARING AN INTERVIEW
- refer to interview guide/script/schedule as “fence”
SEMI-STRUCTURED - develop set of core/open questions
- probe/prompt informants’ responses to gain further elaboration/clarification/insight
- script should be flexible tool aimed at maximising flow of info aka. be sensitive to needs to deviate from the plan
- interview objectives should be clear/translatable into specific questions/sub-topics
- prepare primary question sequence
WRITING AN INTERVIEW (HARVARD METHOD)
- Begin interview w/warm-up q aka. something respondent can answer easily & at length; doesn’t have to pertain directly to what you’re trying to find out (though it might) BUT initial rapport-building will put you more at easy w/one another so rest of interview flows smoothly.
- Think about logical flow: what topics come first/what follows less/more “naturally”? May take some adjustment post several interviews.
- Ask dfficult/potentially embarrassing qs near interview end when rapport = established.
- Design questions starting w/1/5 Ws (when/why/what/where/who/how).
TYPES OF PROBES
SILENT
- nod slowly & tilt head
ECHO
- repeat last statement & ask respondent to continue
NEUTRAL
- encouraging “I see”/”uh-huh”s
DIRECT
- “tell me more”
PHASED ASSERTION
- imply you already know something/encourage respondent to speak up
DETAIL
- who/where/what/when/how
CLARIFYING
- “you said X, please describe what you meant”
CONDUCTING QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS: CHECKLIST
- questions to consider in relation to interview schedules:
1) do interview ps help answer research aims (aka. ensure relevance to area under investigation & philosophy)? ie. don’t ask about a pet’s diet when investigating owner’s wellbeing
2) are qs simple/clear/in plain English?
3) do qs flow well into each other?
4) will qs fit into time restraints of interview?
5) ethical considerations ie. will any qs cause psychological distress? if they unexpectedly do, what then?
6) do you have enough probes to help elicit richest pp answers?
7) do you have introductory/ending statements ready? can you deliver them confidently for rapport?
CONDUCTING QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS: TIPS
- order qs so non-threatening are first
- have nice starter q that isn’t too general BUT also allows discussion
- probes (“tell me more”; who/what/where/how)
- make sure you use clear language; avoid technical terms depending on pp
- pilot qs for understanding aka. check “flow”
- ensure qs meet research study aims
- consider interview length in time terms (appropriate q number)
