Week 9-12 Content Flashcards
Qualitative Research
Generally aims to provide a rich account of a phenomenon
concerned with describing the properties/essence of an entity
concerned with interpreting what a piece of data means, not the numerical properties of it.
Quantitative Research
Concerned with categorizing and defining the entity
generally aims to provide an idea of number, size, or extent of association between phenomena
Principles of Qualitative Research
Understanding/exploring meaning(s) in context
Exploring beliefs/experiences/understandings of a phenomenon
Exploring lived experiences: How does a person makes sense of a phenomenon
Exploring representations: How is X constructed across/within particular contexts
Researcher as Analyst
You are the ‘research instrument’
Subjectivity (versus ‘bias’) - distance does not guarantee objectivity, it only guarantees distance
Reflexivity (process of knowledge production)
Inductive Models
Qualitative researchers often rely on inductive models
where theory develops directly out of data.
Deductive Models
Deductive approaches are typically used in positivist quantitative research and involve testing theory.
Strengths and Weakness of Quantitative Approaches
+Precision and control
+Structural and causal relationships between variables
+Testing theory and hypotheses
- Removed from context and so understanding can be narrow
- Poor external validity
- Little participant involvement
Strengths & Limitations of Qualitative Approaches
- Does not aim for precision and control
- Not well suited to structural relationships between variables
+Allows for novel/unexpected answers
+Good for generating theory
-Cannot draw causal inferences
+Rich detail with high external validity
Participant involvement
Key concepts in qualitative research
The nature of reality/being, what there is out there in the world to ‘know about’
The nature of knowledge, what counts as knowledge, what it is possible to know about the world
How we should go about finding out about the world
Ontology
Theories about the nature of reality/being
Epistemology
Epistemology = your theory of knowledge = how (social) phenomena can be known and how knowledge can be demonstrated.
Epistemology: how to create knowledge
Knowledge is:
Independent of human beings. Positivism/ Empiricism
Dependent of human beings. Relativism/ constructivism
Developing a research question
Qualitative research questions “should have some social relevance and originality”
The topic and the question(s) should reflect the theoretical ideas informing the research
How you carry out your research (design) depends on your research questions - what it is you are trying to find out.
You may start with questions or they may evolve as study progresses
Characteristics of Qualitative Research Questions
Process oriented (“How…” questions)
Locally situated (do not attempt to generate universal laws)
Focused on detailed/in-depth description or analysis of small number of cases
Ethical considerations: qualitative
Vulnerabilities of researchers
In terms of physical safety; the possibility of being traumatized
Informed consent
It is not always possible to say what the analysis is going to be or even the research questions, in advance
Confidentiality is complex
It is necessary to anonymized data, but you don’t want to alter the meaning
Use of audio
People’s voices on their recordings may be recognizable, it is necessary to store them securely
Interpretations
Researchers, through analysis, transform data from words into a ‘story’ – misinterpretations may occur and bias may play a role
Ethical considerations: Participants
Do you know them?
Knowing a participant creates a ‘dual-relationship’ with them. Confidentiality of new information is important
Are they similar or different to you?
Interviewing across difference can be complex and requires careful consideration
Some people prefer to be interviewed by someone similar to them
Power relationships during interviews
Interview situations are often conceived by participants as hierarchical
Participant distress
Acknowledge distress but attempt to contain it
Interviewing vulnerable people
Requires a different set of skills that are developed through professional practice
Types of qualitative data:
Language (written text and spoken word)
Observation of behaviours (involving talk and non-verbal interactions) which can be quite naturalistic or induced e.g. spontaneous singing
Images which may be dynamic (captured digitally on videos/films, photographs, drawings or paintings)
Data Collection Methods
Textual Data Collection: Qualitative Surveys Story Completion Tasks Vignettes Secondary sources Diaries
Interactive Data Collection:
Interviews
Focus Groups
Using tools e.g. repertory grids
Sampling
Theoretical Sampling – you choose your next participants as a result of the data that comes out from your first participant/group of participants
Maximum Variation sampling – you choose participants to reflect the range and diversity of a target population
Snowball sampling – you request future participants from the participants themselves, i.e. people in similar positions
Context sampling – e.g. based on a work location
Convenience sampling – general advertisement/who turns up
Be aware of power dynamics e.g. job roles within same work location
Do you need a screening procedure?
Are you recruiting and moderating/facilitating?
Qualitative surveys
A series of open-ended questions (+ a tick-box demographic section)
Stand-alone qualitative method or used in concert with other qualitative and quantitative methods
Strengths of qualitative surveys
Relatively time and resource-lite (especially if distribution and data collection is via email/online)
Collect data from lots of participants very quickly - useful if participant group is large and lots of perspectives to consider
Access geographically dispersed and ‘hard to engage’ participants
‘Focused’ data (and highly motivated participants often respond in-depth) and ‘standardised’ data
Avoid some of the ethical issues associated with face-to-face data collection
Less time-consuming for participants than interviews and FG
Potentially more anonymous than face-to-face data collection - some people might feel more comfortable recounting sensitive information in a survey than in a face-to-face interview or FG
Weaknesses of qualitative surveys
Limited flexibility and far less organic than interviews and FG
Data generally has less ‘depth’ compared to interviews and FG
Threatening for participants with low literacy skills; challenging/impossible for participants with sight-based disabilities
Generally no structure for completion, so participants have to be highly motivated to complete in their own time/space
Skilled interviews can get people to talk - some people might feel more comfortable disclosing sensitive information face-to-face to a stranger (researcher) or in a group with other people who have similar experiences
Story-completion tasks
Projective-technique (typically used when there are thought to be barriers to verbal or written self-report)
It is proposed that with this kind of task the person completing it is likely to ascribe their own motivations, feelings and behaviours to the “other” person that is being used in the stimulus material.
This potentially allows a participant to externalize their own anxieties, concerns and actions.
Strengths of story-completion tasks
Useful for exploring people’s perceptions, views and opinions (but less suited to experience-type research questions unless they are combined with another method like interviews)
Can be useful for collecting lots of data (from lots of participants) very quickly and avoid some of the ethical issues associated with face-to-face methods of data collection
Useful method for comparative designs – comparing the responses of different groups of participants and/or comparing the responses of participants to scenarios in which one (or two, or three…) aspect of the scenario (e.g., the gender of the characters) is varied
An indirect and ‘disguised’ way of accessing people’s views and perspectives (potentially avoiding social demands)
A way of accessing assumptions and ‘hidden’ meanings
Useful for researching sensitive and ethically/morally complex topics
Weaknesses of story-completion tasks
Data is less predictable than other (self-report) methods (but this can be a good thing)
Wide variation in stories - some stories are long and complicated and highly creative, others are short and very ‘thin’
Data generated can be less transparent and harder to analyse (and identify patterns and themes) than self-report data
Gap between story and ‘reality’ (but only a problem if you want to measure and predict people’s actual behaviour, often in qualitative research we are more concerned with the meanings people draw on in writing their stories)
The artificiality of the technique - SCT cannot capture the complexity of the social world.
Vignettes
“simulations of real events depicting hypothetical situations” (Wilks, 2004, p.80), often involving a dilemma of some kind.
“Typically participants are asked to respond to a particular situation by stating what they would do, or how they imagine a third person, generally a character in a story would react, which often entail some form of moral dilemma. Sometimes participants are asked to comment on both.” (Barter & Reynolds, 2000, p.310)
Like SCT, vignettes are ‘elicitation tools’, facilitating an exploration of participants’ responses to (hypothetical) situations (Wilks, 2004).
Participants read a short vignette (although ‘visual’ material has also been used) and then answer a series of questions about the content of the vignette.
Vignettes can be presented in separate sections or ‘stages’
Stand-alone method or used in concert with other methods (e.g., as an ice-breaker in a focus group)
Strengths of vignettes
Like SCTs, Useful for exploring people’s perceptions, views and opinions (but less suited to experience-type research questions unless they are combined with another method like interviews)
An empowering method - participants have (more or less) scope to define situations on their own terms; participants also have more control over disclosing personal information
Non-personal and therefore less threatening - useful for studying sensitive topics
Participants may be freer in their responses because they are responding to a hypothetical situation (navigating social demands)
Vignettes provide a way of asking questions that are both concrete and distanced from personal experience
Like SCTs, a way to access assumptions and ‘hidden’ meanings, and lots of data quickly
Allow us to present crucial information to participants (compensating for a lack of personal experience) and focus their attention on specific examples
Like SCTs, can be used in comparative designs
More structured vignettes create more potential for uniformity across the data (a key advantage over SCTs)
Weaknesses of vignettes
As with the other methods, less accessible for people with low-literacy skills and sight-based disabilities
Data can be less transparent and harder to analyse than data collected through self-report methods (but potentially more uniform that SCT data)
Interpretation potentially difficult when people have no personal experience
Gap between vignette and ‘reality’
- “There can be little doubt that vignette-based experiences are different from real life but whether this in itself makes it an unsuitable research tool depends on the rationale for using it.” (Hughes, 1998, p.384)
Strengths of interviews
Gets the detail about participant experience directly from them
Can provide non-verbal cues
Can explore difficult, complex issues
Offers opportunity for rich, detailed perspectives on people’s beliefs and experiences
Relatively easy to set up
Flexible
Limits of interviews
Based on what people say, not necessarily the same as what they do
Responses may differ based on context/time
Are only seeing the participant in an interview context
Time consuming
Expensive
May be hard to get participants
Requires a degree of skill
The interview schedule
Rapport
Introduction
The interview
Closing
Interview Guidelines
Ensure they are speaking more than you are
Try not to rush them
If they question you, advise them you will answer questions after the interview
Be careful not to lead the participant
Do not introduce your opinions or additional information
Be mindful of both verbal and non-verbal cues you give off
Be conscious of your time, keep it focused on the topic
Don’t ask multiple things at the same time
Avoid jargon
What is a focus group?
“an informal discussion among selected individuals about specific topics” (Beck et al., 1986, p.73).
“a data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher” (Morgan, 1996, p.130).
Strengths of focus groups
Can generate a wide range of views
Participants may build on each others responses
Allows exploration of attitudes and interactions
Works well when exploring specific group needs
Can allow behaviour change interventions/messages to be tested
Speed of data collection
Limits of focus groups
Group dynamics
Responses may differ based on context
Inequalities of power between participants
Undue influence/bias caused by participants
Requires a degree of skill
May not allow for sensitive aspects to be discussed
Extreme/controversial views may not be identified
Focus group requirements
May need to have incentive
Moderator is there to facilitate an open discussion and manage the group dynamics
No exact number of sessions (<10)
6-10 participants per group
1-1.5 hours
It is the group dynamic that generates the data
Participants can be similar or different
Discourse Analysis
Broad “umbrella” term for a number of different theoretical and methodological movements
Discourse Analysis is an entire way of perceiving how we gain an understanding of our social world(s) (including psychology itself
Macro and Micro Discourse Analysis
Micro (bottom-up) discourse analysis – focuses on the actions and effects of situated interaction or conversation. Understanding of everyday talk and interaction
Macro (top-down) discourse analysis – focuses on how we understand the effects of power, knowledge and ideology
What is a discourse?
A discourse is a way of representing an object, event or phenomenon in a particular way/ways.
Discourses actively construct how we perceive of and understanding our social world(s) - including our place within it.
They provide us with a culturally available repository of meaning from which we can talk about (represent) things – including ourselves - in meaningful ways
How to Analyse Discourse
- Identify Discursive Objects
- Identify Discourses
- Examine Action Orientation
- Examine Effects
- Consider Context
What is IPA?
A meaning-focused qualitative method of data analysis.
Committed to understanding the first person perspective from a third person position, so far as is possible, through intersubjective inquiry and analysis.
IPA offers an established, systematic, and phenomenologically-focused approach to the interpretation of first person accounts, which is committed to situating personal meaning in context.
Aim of IPA
Phenomenological (science of consciousness):
To explore in detail the participant’s view of the world and acquire an insider’s perspective. The aim here is to get “experience-close” rather than “experience per se”
Hermeneutic (theory of interpretation):
Understanding of another’s personal world depends on, and is complicated by, the researcher’s own conceptions.
Two-stage interpretation process:
Participants are trying to make sense of their world
The researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their worlds.
Assumptions of IPA
When we talk about “experience” in IPA research, we are talking about “something that matters to the participant” and something of which they have some understanding of - we seek to understand their perspective on it.
Relationship between:
cognition - account – behaviour
How to do IPA
Analysis
Start with one case – move slowly and carefully
Second case - nuanced account of similarities and differences
Systematic search for experiential themes
Forge connections between themes
Abstract to superordinate themes
Write Up
Narrative account - themes supported by verbatim
Interpretative – not descriptive
How to do IPA analysis
Bracketing (epoch)
Reading of transcripts
Initial coding (summary of ideas, initial interpretations, anything that is considered interesting) - notes
Extracting themes (key words that capture the essence of findings)
Look for connections – more notes/mind-maps
Superordinate or Master themes – thematic hierarchy
Support with Instances
What is Thematic Analysis?
“Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organises and describes your data in (rich) detail. However, frequently it goes further than this, and interprets various aspects of the research topic”
AIM = provide thick description of data by breaking data down into themes and using these to describe and explain what is happening within the data
Basic and Sophisticated Thematic Analysis
Basic:
Describes
Summarises
Represents
Sophisticated: Tells a story Locates data/participants within the wider social, cultural, historical, political, ideological contexts Interprets Theoretical/conceptual analysis Makes an argument
Phase 1: Familiarising yourself with the data and identifying items of interest
These are the first and some very important steps in understanding your data set
Immerse yourself in your data
Read through data individually and repeatedly
It is important you do this equally for all responses
This familiarisation process is not systematic, but casual – it is more about observation
You will start to notice things of interest/importance. When you do, note them down.
Phase 2: Generating Initial Codes
Give a name (‘label’) that you think represents the data unit analysed
A code is a short label that captures what is interesting about the data
Code inclusively, comprehensively and systematically
Phase 3: Searching for Themes
Theme: coherent and meaningful pattern in the data relevant to the research question
Searching for themes is an active process; themes do not ‘emerge’ from data fully formed!
Review the coded data to help you identify potential themes
Consider how different codes may combine to form an overarching theme.
Cluster together similar codes
‘Promote’ an important (‘big’) code to a theme
You may discard some codes/data or you could have a ‘miscellaneous’ category
Phase 4: Reviewing Potential Themes
Starting to identify the nature or character of this potential theme:
Questions to ask:
Is this a theme?
What is the quality of this theme?
What are the boundaries of this theme?
Are there enough (meaningful) data to support this theme?
Check if the themes work in relation to (a) the coded extracts and (b) the entire data set
Semantic or Latent?
What level should a theme be coded at?
Semantic/explicit level – themes are identified within the explicit or surface meanings of the data. Analyst is not looking beyond what the person is saying
Surface of the jelly – form and meaning
Latent/interpretative level – analyst is concerned to examine the underlying ideas, assumptions and conceptualisations, and ideologies that are theorised as shaping or informing the semantic content of the data
Features that give the jelly its particular form and meaning
Phase 5: Define and name your themes
Give each theme:
A name or label
A definition/description
Refine the specifics of each theme and the overall story of your analysis. This is the start of you producing the report.
Phase 6: Producing the Report
Higher-Level Analysis
Connecting the data back up again into a meaningful story or interpretation
Connections between themes, sub-themes and how they are related to the overall research question
How the themes come together to give a coherent answer to the research question
Quality in research
Ethics boards, funding bodies, research supervisors and examiners, review student projects, research proposals and research articles.
Is this research ethical?
Should we fund this research?
Should this research be applied to policy?
Should this article be published?
Should this candidate be awarded a Ph.D.?
Guidelines for publication
Owning one’s perspective
Acknowledging theoretical orientations and personal anticipations.
Situating the sample
Describing the research participants and their life circumstances
Grounding in examples
Providing examples of data.
Providing credibility checks
e.g. checking with original participants; multiple analysts; triangulation
Flexible criteria
Sensitivity to context
Theoretical; relevant literature; empirical data; socio- cultural setting; participants’ perspectives; ethical issues
Commitment & Rigour
In-depth engagement with topic; methodological competence/skill; thorough data collection; depth/breadth of analysis
Transparency & Coherence
Clarity & power of description/argument; transparent methods and data presentation; fit between theory and method; reflexivity
Impact & Utility
Theoretical (enriching understanding); socio-cultural; practical (for community, policy makers, health workers)
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP): 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research:
Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?
Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?
Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?
Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?
Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?
Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
Is there a clear statement of findings?
How valuable is the research?
Triangulation
“Triangulation traditionally refers to a process whereby two or more methods of data collection or sources of data are used to examine the same phenomenon” (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p.285).
A way of strengthening analytic claims?
Getting a richer or fuller story
Capturing multiple voices or ‘truths’ about a topic
e. g. collecting data from multiple sources - teachers, parents, children
e. g. using different methods – diaries, interviews, vignettes
FRITH AND GLEESON (2004) Method
Methods:
To recruit participants, they used a snowball sampling approach.
In total, 75 men participated, 74% were aged 17-26 years old.
They completed a series of open-response questions on paper and were asked to return their responses to the research team.
The Clothing and the Body Questionnaire contained four questions: How much does the way you feel about your body influence the kinds of clothing you buy or wear? Do you dress in a way that hides aspects of your body? Do you dress in a way that emphasizes aspects of your body? Is there anything else you think we should know, or are there any questions we should have asked but didn’t?
Responses were analysed using Thematic Analysis.
Findings of Frith
Findings:
There were 4 key themes:
practicality of clothing choices
“The clothes I buy tend to have a specific purpose and function.”
lack of concern about appearance
“you should not be overly concerned with your appearance as it is not the most important thing in life”
use of clothing to conceal or reveal the body
“If I am feeling fat or unappealing, then the clothes I buy will be thicker, darker, or less revealing.”
use of clothing to fit cultural ideals.
“I have started to bulk out and put on weight and gain more confidence about my body shape and have started buying more tight-fitting clothing.”
